Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 109
Like Tree36Likes

Thread: Hafele-Keating: online data available on dilatation during the flights?

  1. #1 Hafele-Keating: online data available on dilatation during the flights? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Are there links to data presenting the time dilatations on both flights as the planes go round ?

    I mean is there data available that compares the clocks on the planes with the clock on earth during the flights ?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Are there links to data presenting the time dilatations on both flights as the planes go round ?

    I mean is there data available that compares the clocks on the planes with the clock on earth during the flights ?
    Yes. Here: Hafele-Keating Experiment among other places.


    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 Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Are there links to data presenting the time dilatations on both flights as the planes go round ?

    I mean is there data available that compares the clocks on the planes with the clock on earth during the flights ?
    Yes. Here: Hafele-Keating Experiment among other places.
    I thought that was years ago . . . 1972.

    Hasn't this been done since then with spacecraft? The much faster speeds would show even greater differences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Are there links to data presenting the time dilatations on both flights as the planes go round ?

    I mean is there data available that compares the clocks on the planes with the clock on earth during the flights ?
    Yes. Here: Hafele-Keating Experiment among other places.
    I thought that was years ago . . . 1972.

    Hasn't this been done since then with spacecraft? The much faster speeds would show even greater differences.
    Yes, it has been done, by Vessot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Are there links to data presenting the time dilatations on both flights as the planes go round ?

    I mean is there data available that compares the clocks on the planes with the clock on earth during the flights ?
    Yes. Here: Hafele-Keating Experiment among other places.
    I thought that was years ago . . . 1972.

    Hasn't this been done since then with spacecraft? The much faster speeds would show even greater differences.
    Yes, it has been done, by Vessot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    But in the case of Hafele-Keating, where the planes fly in opposite directions around the world,
    Iis there data available of observed time dilatations at different moments, positions during the flights ?
    Measurements taken during the flights of both planes that is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    But in the case of Hafele-Keating, where the planes fly in opposite directions around the world,
    Iis there data available of observed time dilatations at different moments, positions during the flights ?
    Measurements taken during the flights of both planes that is.
    I think they were dealing in differences of several millionths of a second.

    GPS satellites, due to their orbital speeds relative to the Earth and each other, use relativity calculations to stay in synch with each other and the ground stations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    But in the case of Hafele-Keating, where the planes fly in opposite directions around the world,
    Iis there data available of observed time dilatations at different moments, positions during the flights ?
    Measurements taken during the flights of both planes that is.
    Your question is all garbled, demonstrating, once again, your lack of understanding. You can't even form a coherent question, why don't you try taking some classes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    The experiment with macroscopic clocks verified predictions to within 10%.

    Years later another plane experiment done by the University of Maryland succeeded in checking time dilation to better than 1%.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    But in the case of Hafele-Keating, where the planes fly in opposite directions around the world,
    Iis there data available of observed time dilatations at different moments, positions during the flights ?
    Measurements taken during the flights of both planes that is.
    How exactly do you think that would work?

    Measurements of time taken during the flights of one clock, relative to what other clock? The other clock has to be somewhere other than on the plane, otherwise both clocks would measure the same elapsed time. It is not as if anyone on that plane could look at their watch and say "at 1pm, the on board atomic clock read 12.59 pm, because all clocks on that plane would measure the same proper time! You need to compare the clock on the plane with a clock on the ground. And then you get into the issue of sending signals back and forth between frames in motion relative to each other, were distances are continually increasing or decreasing, and the problems of simultaneity this entails even after you somehow manage to factor out any doppler effects due to those relative motions.

    In a nutshell, you cannot meaningfully compare the proper times of clocks in relative motion, you need to compare those proper times when both clocks are at rest in the same frame.

    The only way to do the experiment is to just synchronise the clocks in the same frame, then have one clock move relative to another, then bring the moving clock back again and compare the elapsed times on those clocks to measure the time-dilation between them. Which is what they did.
    Last edited by SpeedFreek; May 20th, 2014 at 02:36 PM.
    "Ok, brain let's get things straight. You don't like me, and I don't like you, so let's do this so I can go back to killing you with beer." - Homer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    GPS satellites, due to their orbital speeds relative to the Earth and each other, use relativity calculations to stay in synch with each other and the ground stations.
    GPS was what first occurred to me when I looked at the original posting. However, I thought that the time dilation involved here was in part due to the fact that the gravitational field at the position of the satellite was less than on the surface of the earth - in other words, it isn't an effect which can be accounted for entirely by special relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by JonG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    GPS satellites, due to their orbital speeds relative to the Earth and each other, use relativity calculations to stay in synch with each other and the ground stations.
    GPS was what first occurred to me when I looked at the original posting. However, I thought that the time dilation involved here was in part due to the fact that the gravitational field at the position of the satellite was less than on the surface of the earth - in other words, it isn't an effect which can be accounted for entirely by special relativity.
    You could be right. And it could be both. Haven't read up on it in a few years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Well, the results of Hafele-Keating cannot be accounted for entirely by Special Relativity, either. There is also the difference in gravitational potential to account for, in both cases.

    The difference in the GPS system is that the overall time-dilation for both components (the kinematic part and the gravity part) has already been accounted for on the clocks on the GPS satellite, so the clock signal coming from the satellite remains synchronised with the clock in a GPS unit at sea level, as long as the GPS unit on the ground doesn't move.

    It is the movement (or altitude) of the GPS unit on Earth that makes the signals go out of synchronisation, which allows the GPS unit to calculate how much it has moved (or how different its altitude is from sea level), along with triangulation of the GPS satellite cluster, which allows the GPS unit on Earth to calculate in which direction it has moved.
    "Ok, brain let's get things straight. You don't like me, and I don't like you, so let's do this so I can go back to killing you with beer." - Homer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    236
    Apart from high speed aircraft and satellites, another check on time dilation relates to the lifetime of muons, which are generated in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. It seems that the lifetimes of muons which are heading towards the earth at very high speeds is longer than lifetimes of more sedentary muons which have been investigated in the laboratory. More muons reach the surface of the earth than would be expected from their lab measured lifetimes. Apparently, this can be accounted for by time dilation. However, as always, the devil resides in the detail - error limits, and so on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    A particle accelerator in the laboratory. With one muon at rest and another moving at close to c is another experiment for time dilation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    A particle accelerator in the laboratory.
    Indeed, if Noa is looking for experimental confirmation of relativity's predictions, a particle accelerator is a rich source of relevant demonstrations. Lawrence found that his cyclotron did not scale up gracefully beyond a few MeV or so energies. The reason was that he had neglected relativistic effects. Once relativity was properly incorporated (in the design of the next-generation accelerator, the synchrotron), energies in the GeV range were achieved. We are now in the TeV era, thanks to understanding, and accommodating, relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    @Speedfreak

    If the readings on the atomic clocks were noted on board at certain positions of the circle made, say at 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degrees, 360 degrees.
    These positions could be monitored from earth also, and the times on the earth clock could be noted on those same locations were the planes pass.
    No signal sending needed then.
    This way you could have data of time dilatation during the flights at multiple moments,locations of both roundtrips.

    Is this correct or did i miss something ?

    Analysing such data could provide insight in influences from the changing surroundings, additional or refined corellations.
    Also effects that may have canceled out after 360 degrees could show up along the way.

    I would use it to verify , check the credibility of a hypothesis, not to be discussed in this section.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    @Speedfreak

    If the readings on the atomic clocks were noted on board at certain positions of the circle made, say at 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degrees, 360 degrees.
    These positions could be monitored from earth also, and the times on the earth clock could be noted on those same locations were the planes pass.
    No signal sending needed then.
    This way you could have data of time dilatation during the flights at multiple moments,locations of both roundtrips.

    Is this correct or did i miss something ?
    There is no need for that, the best verification , as it was explained to you , is done when the clocks are being brought together, side by side.
    There are certain complications that occur if you want to compare them when they are separated.

    Analysing such data could provide insight in influences from the changing surroundings, additional or refined corellations.
    Also effects that may have canceled out after 360 degrees could show up along the way.

    I would use it to verify , check the credibility of a hypothesis, not to be discussed in this section.
    Try to understand the simple case before you progress to your "hypothesis" (not to be discussed in this section). I take it that this is yet another one of your personal hypothesis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    @Speedfreak

    If the readings on the atomic clocks were noted on board at certain positions of the circle made, say at 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degrees, 360 degrees.
    These positions could be monitored from earth also, and the times on the earth clock could be noted on those same locations were the planes pass.
    No signal sending needed then.
    How could the times on the Earth clock (which was located at the US Naval Observatory) be noted at the locations when the planes pass, without some form of signal sending?
    "Ok, brain let's get things straight. You don't like me, and I don't like you, so let's do this so I can go back to killing you with beer." - Homer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    @Speedfreak

    If the readings on the atomic clocks were noted on board at certain positions of the circle made, say at 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degrees, 360 degrees.
    These positions could be monitored from earth also, and the times on the earth clock could be noted on those same locations were the planes pass.
    No signal sending needed then.
    How could the times on the Earth clock (which was located at the US Naval Observatory) be noted at the locations when the planes pass, without some form of signal sending?
    Don't encourage him, he'll develop his "theory" in this forum. Let him open a thread in Pseudoscience (or Trash).
    SpeedFreek and PhDemon like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I would use it to verify , check the credibility of a hypothesis, not to be discussed in this section.
    OK, the ulterior motive for starting this thread is now known. I sure wish I hadn't wasted my time responding.
    Howard Roark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I would use it to verify , check the credibility of a hypothesis, not to be discussed in this section.
    OK, the ulterior motive for starting this thread is now known. I sure wish I hadn't wasted my time responding.
    Yep, I have a PhD in troll detection.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I would use it to verify , check the credibility of a hypothesis, not to be discussed in this section.
    OK, the ulterior motive for starting this thread is now known. I sure wish I hadn't wasted my time responding.
    Yep, I have a PhD in troll detection.
    You know, it's a little depressing to spend time responding. I usually think that a poster just wants to learn something. And then to find out you're just doing the research leg-work for his pet speculation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I would use it to verify , check the credibility of a hypothesis, not to be discussed in this section.
    OK, the ulterior motive for starting this thread is now known. I sure wish I hadn't wasted my time responding.
    Yep, I have a PhD in troll detection.
    You know, it's a little depressing to spend time responding. I usually think that a poster just wants to learn something. And then to find out you're just doing the research leg-work for his pet speculation.
    A little depressing? Trolls are the reason I drink at night... That and because all the brilliantly plotted melancholic skinemax originals come on at night.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I would use it to verify , check the credibility of a hypothesis, not to be discussed in this section.
    OK, the ulterior motive for starting this thread is now known. I sure wish I hadn't wasted my time responding.
    Yep, I have a PhD in troll detection.
    You know, it's a little depressing to spend time responding. I usually think that a poster just wants to learn something. And then to find out you're just doing the research leg-work for his pet speculation.
    A little depressing? Trolls are the reason I drink at night... That and because all the brilliantly plotted melancholic skinemax originals come on at night.
    I know you're joking (about the trolls ).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I would use it to verify , check the credibility of a hypothesis, not to be discussed in this section.
    OK, the ulterior motive for starting this thread is now known. I sure wish I hadn't wasted my time responding.
    Yep, I have a PhD in troll detection.
    You know, it's a little depressing to spend time responding. I usually think that a poster just wants to learn something. And then to find out you're just doing the research leg-work for his pet speculation.
    Yep.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Moved to Personal Theories.

    I realise one hasn't yet been advanced, but the thread seems to be about an idiosyncratic version of relativity.
    Howard Roark 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  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Moved to Personal Theories.

    I realise one hasn't yet been advanced, but the thread seems to be about an idiosyncratic version of relativity.
    OK, a few remarks on all of this backstabbing in the above posts:

    -@Speedfreak

    Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

    Originally Posted by Noa Drake
    @Speedfreak

    If the readings on the atomic clocks were noted on board at certain positions of the circle made, say at 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degrees, 360 degrees.
    These positions could be monitored from earth also, and the times on the earth clock could be noted on those same locations were the planes pass.
    No signal sending needed then.



    How could the times on the Earth clock (which was located at the US Naval Observatory) be noted at the locations when the planes pass, without some form of signal sending?

    >>> Why do you twist my proposition ? Synchronised clocks and observatory equipment could be positioned on different locations along the equator on earth. Then note the times they indicate as the planes fly over.Then afterwards compare with the times noted on the airplane clocks at the same locations.
    >Again politely, and with the note that i could be mistaken, could that work ?


    @posters :

    -So let me get this straight.

    I cannot ask straight forward questions in the physics section, on account of a hypothesis i have ?

    I explicitely added that i would not post or talk about this hypothesis in the section of the question.

    In the Personal theories it is allowed to have a personal a hypothesis , no ?

    You also just make up assumptions on what i precisely intend.



    -xyzt said : And then to find out you're just doing the research leg-work for his pet speculation.

    > Is that i forum crime now also ??


    -I am a troll for trying to develope my own hypothesis ?

    -I am a troll now for elaborating, by means of data, on the larger context effects of the experiment ?????

    -A was instructed by this forum that science constantly tries to find ways to update, improve, change, complete existing theories,
    but apparently when a non-scientist tries this on a hobby level, it is trolling of the worst kind...
    As far as i know this forum is not the same thing as a professional scientific working environment, altough some of you certainly have the knowledge.


    >>> I ASKED A QUESTION ON DATA AVAILABILITY, I DID NOT FORMULATE ANY HYPOTHESIS
    >>> When this data apparently seemed not available, i proposed a variation on the HK experiment to get such data, having the politeness to ask if my line of reasoning was correct. Interesting information could come out of it, wether some may or may not like that should be irrelevant here.



    WHAT IS THE PROBLEM THEN ?!?!?

    (And excuse me for getting slightly angry here...)



    Last edited by Noa Drake; May 21st, 2014 at 03:44 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    @Adelady

    Please indicate the personal theory i proposed here.

    Or was it a 'pro-active' action you took ?
    The new modus operandi on the forum ?
    Been watching to much of Minority Report, the movie, perhaps ?


    "the thread seems to be about an idiosyncratic version of relativity."

    >The thread is about a question as far as i understand.
    Last edited by Noa Drake; May 21st, 2014 at 04:19 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    but apparently when a non-scientist tries this on a hobby level, it is trolling of the worst kind...
    No.

    But it's not accepted science either. You're not advancing or discussing the details of the equations and theories of either special or general relativity afaict. (I'm not a physicist.) You're looking for exceptions or for ways to do things differently - or some other objective that's really obscure to me.

    Remember. A lot of students come to these forums looking for information and guidance in their education in what can be difficult concepts to master. So it behoves us to separate off items that don't fit physics-as-we-know-it which might distract or derail such people from getting relativity straight in their heads before going off into other realms.
    Howard Roark 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  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    A particle accelerator in the laboratory.
    Indeed, if Noa is looking for experimental confirmation of relativity's predictions, a particle accelerator is a rich source of relevant demonstrations. Lawrence found that his cyclotron did not scale up gracefully beyond a few MeV or so energies. The reason was that he had neglected relativistic effects. Once relativity was properly incorporated (in the design of the next-generation accelerator, the synchrotron), energies in the GeV range were achieved. We are now in the TeV era, thanks to understanding, and accommodating, relativity.
    Thank you for your explanation and suggestions Tk421.
    But i was specifically interested in the case of round trips around the world, due to the interesting larger context of that experimental situation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    but apparently when a non-scientist tries this on a hobby level, it is trolling of the worst kind...
    No.

    But it's not accepted science either. You're not advancing or discussing the details of the equations and theories of either special or general relativity afaict. (I'm not a physicist.) You're looking for exceptions or for ways to do things differently - or some other objective that's really obscure to me.

    Remember. A lot of students come to these forums looking for information and guidance in their education in what can be difficult concepts to master. So it behoves us to separate off items that don't fit physics-as-we-know-it which might distract or derail such people from getting relativity straight in their heads before going off into other realms.
    Certainly i appreciate the educational function and efforts of this forum.
    Yet in my personal oppinion, to encourage students to have a critical attitude of what they are instructed in school or university,
    or anywhere else for that matter, is not derailing. It is a very healthy reflex to develope as a curious, investigative scientist-to-be.
    In my university education (5 years Master Degree, University of Antwerp), i was always incouraged by the professors themselves to constantly question the relevance of accomplished results, in order to make progress, improve.
    No doubt that is part of the reason why i adopted this attitude in life as well.
    Last edited by Noa Drake; May 21st, 2014 at 04:26 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,344
    True, but that is not what you are doing, I've interacted with you enough on this forum to know you are just looking for stuff to cherry pick to support your pseudoscience, that is why I have stopped responding to you. (I'm only posting here as your posturing as a defender of critical thinking is quite funny given your posting history and I felt it deserved a comment pointing it out).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    I know we have a different view of what critical thinking consists of, no problem.

    Anyone who is constructing a hypothesis, will be looking for supporting material.
    I never deceived people on my purpose. In fact very early on when i came here, i posted an introduction to a hypothesis to be formulated later. Since then i have been learning and learning, to one day formulate it to the best of my abilities.

    You are free to dislike it, but with mutually respectfull communication, different approaches should be able to exist on a forum such as this, no ?

    And the scientific papers i have suggested en posted on the forum have a professional signature, so no second pseudo-agenda there at all.
    Some very knowledgeable people around here have called several of them 'interesting', and looked into them with decent motivation.



    And ref.to post 17 :

    "Analysing such data could provide insight in influences from the changing surroundings, additional or refined corellations. Also effects that may have canceled out after 360 degrees could show up along the way."

    I really cannot understand why that would be offensive to a scientist or anyone interested in science.
    It is not relativity - antirelativity, it is nuance, a very difficult attitude to defend around here apparently.

    Last edited by Noa Drake; May 21st, 2014 at 05:02 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,344
    Yes, it is your interpretation of the papers you suggest and your shoddy methodology I don't like. You cherry pick and ignore anything that doesn't support your claims. That does not lead to progress, it leads to crankdom...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    I am making an effort to find a way to falsify the hypothesis i intend to formulate, instead of just posting it and defending it with reason and logic.
    The data i referred to, or an experiment as suggested, is a means to check objectively what i would claim.
    That would be the only way to get a hypothesis taken seriously.
    Obviously performing an new experiment is not very realistic in this context, so i was in search of existing online data to obtain the same,
    as i asked for in my initial post.( Obviously i would hope that my prediction would concur with those data...)

    And you are free to dislike my interpretations of certain papers.
    Interpreting existing observations over and over again in exactly the same way , will not bring anything fresh to the table.(For instance, without wanting to go into the subject here, interpreting and hypothesizing on the fysical meaning of 'time slowing down'). Unfortunately even just placing such a question mark is perceived as offensive, or as the efforts of a crank.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,344
    ...and interpreting them in ways that contradict known physics that is well understood and experimentally verified to a very high level of accuracy in an effort to support your preconceived crackpot theory is a waste of time. If you're happy to waste your time go for it, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously :shrug:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Yet in my personal oppinion, to encourage students to have a critical attitude of what they are instructed in school or university,
    or anywhere else for that matter, is not derailing. It is a very healthy reflex to develope as a curious, investigative scientist-to-be.
    You say this is your personal opinion. I presume you're not a teacher. As it happens, my husband is a science teacher and I tutor students who are having difficulties - with science among other things.

    The one thing everyone knows is that students cannot think, let alone evaluate or criticise, stuff that they don't know or don't understand. The basic requirement for critical thinking is that the student must know the material they're considering. You can't consider the value or usefulness of calculus until you've mastered enough of it to have applied it in its standard uses. Anyone who's still stuck at the level of not being sure they're using the right techniques for the problem in front of them is. not. capable. of offering an evaluation of the subject.

    It's very, very much like drafting a film or music critique. If you've not watched or listened and gone back over what you know of the subject - any criticism you might write would be simply guesswork. The approach you're suggesting for science would be like a music critic reviewing a new album by saying I've never liked this band and the new singer's a bit of a dill - so I didn't listen to it, and I reckon everyone else should save their money too. And the review would be just as valueless if they'd written that these people are the best ever and everyone needs a copy of their latest - without having listened to it to check that it's not the absolute dreck even good performers can turn out in some circumstances.
    tk421 and Howard Roark like 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  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post


    If the readings on the atomic clocks were noted on board at certain positions of the circle made, say at 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degrees, 360 degrees.
    These positions could be monitored from earth also, and the times on the earth clock could be noted on those same locations were the planes pass.
    No signal sending needed then.



    How could the times on the Earth clock (which was located at the US Naval Observatory) be noted at the locations when the planes pass, without some form of signal sending?

    It wasn't. One last time: the comparison was made between the clocks on the plane, when they LANDED in the SAME EXACT PLACE with the clock on the ground located AT THE PLACE where they landed. So, all three clocks were located in the SAME PLACE.
    You claim to have studied 5 years (at the Antwerp University). If you don't mind my asking, what did you study? Did you graduate?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Again politely, and with the note that i could be mistaken, could that work ?
    I don't think so. The degree of accuracy needed and the margins for error are too great to simply use estimated positions, and without a synchronization signal, estimation is all there is.
    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  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Again politely, and with the note that i could be mistaken, could that work ?
    I don't think so. The degree of accuracy needed and the margins for error are too great to simply use estimated positions, and without a synchronization signal, estimation is all there is.
    Thank you for your response.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    @xyzt

    I know, and explained further, which you did not read as it seems.

    I studied Industrial Design, also known as Product Developement, today called Industrial Design Sciences,
    and did indeed graduate after 5 years. Go insult somebody else now,thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    @xyzt

    I know, and explained further, which you did not read as it seems.

    I studied Industrial Design, also known as Product Developement, today called Industrial Design Sciences,
    and did indeed graduate after 5 years. Go insult somebody else now,thank you.
    So, you had to study "some" math and "some" physics, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Certainly i appreciate the educational function and efforts of this forum.
    Yet in my personal oppinion, to encourage students to have a critical attitude of what they are instructed in school or university,
    or anywhere else for that matter, is not derailing. It is a very healthy reflex to develope as a curious, investigative scientist-to-be.
    That's fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough, Noa, and that is part of the persistent problem you've had here. It's always good to question the received wisdom -- how do we know what (we think) we know? -- but the key part that you're missing is that a critical attitude must also extend to the questioner! A knee-jerk reflex to reject all received wisdom in favor of a personal preference isn't a way forward, either. One should always ask, "Do I have enough understanding of the subject to have an informed opinion? Am I qualified to object? Why should my ill-formed feelings about something have equal (or greater) weight than the knowledge accumulated by thousands of researchers over centuries of dedicated work?"

    So yes, by all means ask, "How do 'they' know what they know?" But don't forget to ask yourself, "How do I know what I know?"

    In my university education (5 years Master Degree, University of Antwerp), i was always incouraged by the professors themselves to constantly question the relevance of accomplished results, in order to make progress, improve.
    No doubt that is part of the reason why i adopted this attitude in life as well.
    Again, that's fine, but the part that either you or your teachers apparently neglected to acknowledge is the need to be critical about one's own opinion. I've run into too many students who've somehow come to believe that "critical thinking" means "don't believe anything but what makes sense to you." That is most definitely not what scientists mean by the concept.

    On another note, you complain that our attitude toward yours is somehow unfair. I disagree strongly. You started this thread with an unstated ulterior motive. Why does that matter, you ask? It matters because people make choices about how and whether to respond based on the reason for the question, as much as on the question itself. By playing your little hide-and-seek game with us, you remove from us the freedom of choice, and you cause us to waste time coming up with answers that you find irrelevant. You may think that denying others their freedom of choice and wasting their time is no big deal, but it is unethical behaviour, and brings with it definite negative social consequences. To then complain when those consequences manifest themselves reveals that you have a lot to learn about subjects other than physics.
    PhDemon and Howard Roark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Originally Posted by Noa Drake
    @Speedfreak

    If the readings on the atomic clocks were noted on board at certain positions of the circle made, say at 90 degrees, 180 degrees, 270 degrees, 360 degrees.
    These positions could be monitored from earth also, and the times on the earth clock could be noted on those same locations were the planes pass.
    No signal sending needed then.



    How could the times on the Earth clock (which was located at the US Naval Observatory) be noted at the locations when the planes pass, without some form of signal sending?

    >>> Why do you twist my proposition ? Synchronised clocks and observatory equipment could be positioned on different locations along the equator on earth. Then note the times they indicate as the planes fly over.Then afterwards compare with the times noted on the airplane clocks at the same locations.
    >Again politely, and with the note that i could be mistaken, could that work ?
    I wasn't aware I was twisting your proposition, as I hadn't realised you wanted to note the time on the clock on the jet plane using different clocks spread around the surface of the Earth, I thought you wanted to relate those readings to one clock.

    So, how do we know if those clocks in different places on the Earth are synchronised at the time each reading of the clock on the jet plane takes place? Keeping four atomic clocks that are spread around the globe continually synchronised is no trivial task in itself. Are they all at exactly the same altitude and latitude? Is the gravity of the Earth near them the same value in all those locations (no, it isn't).

    Here is a gravity map of the Earth.

    http://smsc.cnes.fr/IcGOCE/Gravi_monde_Free_air.jpg

    Then, you'll need to sends signals between all those clocks to ensure they all read exactly the same time at the same time (and it is highly unlikely they will).

    Then you have to make sure the plane is at the same location relative to each clock, i.e. the same distance away, ideally at exactly the same altitude directly above the clock below when the measurement is taken. You will also need to know the planes speed relative to each clock, which will not be consistent (due to different atmospheric conditions in different places), as that will cause a different time-dilation between the plane and each clock otherwise, etc etc.

    And I am just skimming the surface of the problem here.
    RedPanda and Howard Roark like this.
    "Ok, brain let's get things straight. You don't like me, and I don't like you, so let's do this so I can go back to killing you with beer." - Homer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    @xyzt

    I know, and explained further, which you did not read as it seems.

    I studied Industrial Design, also known as Product Developement, today called Industrial Design Sciences,
    and did indeed graduate after 5 years. Go insult somebody else now,thank you.
    So, you had to study "some" math and "some" physics, right?
    You may be an xyzt in some areas, but you probably are just an abcd in other areas.
    The same counts for me.
    I have explained many times why i believed in complementary skills, the synergy effects of it, nobody cares around here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I have explained many times why i believed in complementary skills, the synergy effects of it, nobody cares around here.
    I think you misunderstand. Skills are valuable, as far as they relate to a particular task at hand.

    As for me, I don't much care what a person's background is. An idea will stand or fall on the quality of the idea itself; how it came to be is of tertiary interest. Too many -- cranks, mostly -- seem to think that their résumé is somehow relevant (or will elevate their credibility). It isn't (or doesn't). Winning a Nobel doesn't confer omniscience (several winners have espoused crackpot beliefs), for example.

    It's the idea itself that matters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    I suppose I should add, here, that the clock on the ground is also time-dilated relative to an inertial frame. All the clocks in Hafele-Keating experiment, the clock flown eastwards, the clock flown westwards and the clock on the ground at the US Naval Observatory showed time-dilation relative to an inertial frame.

    This explains why the clock that was flown eastwards lost time ("ticked slow") relative to the clock on the ground, whilst the clock flown westwards gained time ("ticked fast").

    All three clocks were moving in relation to an inertial frame. A rotating frame is not inertial, and that means the clock on the ground was not inertial.

    If we imagine a frame at rest in relation to the axis the Earth rotates around (take a viewpoint above the north pole, looking down, and watch the Earth rotate), then the clock flown eastwards was going faster than the rotation of the Earth, and showed the least elapsed time at the end of the experiment, the clock on the ground was going along at the rotation speed of the Earth and showed more elapsed time at the end of the experiment, and the clock flown westwards was moving slower than the rotation of the Earth and showed the most elapsed time at the end of the experiment.

    Just as Special Relativity predicts.
    Last edited by SpeedFreek; May 22nd, 2014 at 01:44 PM. Reason: typo
    "Ok, brain let's get things straight. You don't like me, and I don't like you, so let's do this so I can go back to killing you with beer." - Homer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I have explained many times why i believed in complementary skills, the synergy effects of it, nobody cares around here.
    I think you misunderstand. Skills are valuable, as far as they relate to a particular task at hand.

    As for me, I don't much care what a person's background is. An idea will stand or fall on the quality of the idea itself; how it came to be is of tertiary interest. Too many -- cranks, mostly -- seem to think that their résumé is somehow relevant (or will elevate their credibility). It isn't (or doesn't). Winning a Nobel doesn't confer omniscience (several winners have espoused crackpot beliefs), for example.

    It's the idea itself that matters.
    I certainly concur with the statements in bold.
    But on this forum one of the most often used arguments in this context is 'You don't have the skills, why would you be able to present more relevant solutions then those who specialised for years and years on the subject?'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,344
    Yes, but that is only said AFTER your ideas have been shown to be crap (which like a true crackpot you ignore and never acknowledge) to try and convince you that maybe, just maybe your almost total ignorance of physics might mean you are mistaken...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I have explained many times why i believed in complementary skills, the synergy effects of it, nobody cares around here.
    I think you misunderstand. Skills are valuable, as far as they relate to a particular task at hand.

    As for me, I don't much care what a person's background is. An idea will stand or fall on the quality of the idea itself; how it came to be is of tertiary interest. Too many -- cranks, mostly -- seem to think that their résumé is somehow relevant (or will elevate their credibility). It isn't (or doesn't). Winning a Nobel doesn't confer omniscience (several winners have espoused crackpot beliefs), for example.

    It's the idea itself that matters.
    I certainly concur with the statements in bold.
    But on this forum one of the most often used arguments in this context is 'You don't have the skills, why would you be able to present more relevant solutions then those who specialised for years and years on the subject?'
    To add to PhDemon's answer, I would point out that you are committing a post hoc logical error. You are assuming that your credentials (or lack of same) is the reason your idea is being rejected. It's the other way around, Noa. It's that your confidence is incommensurate with your knowledge. At the same time your knowledge is demonstrably incomplete in fundamental ways, you feel qualified to ignore or dismiss mainstream science. You are being properly criticised for displaying a characteristic that is very common among "out of the box" thiinkers: Confidence without a basis for that confidence. To me, that's a working definition of arrogance.

    It's as if someone who has never played the piano, and has only read popular descriptions of playing the piano, were to walk up to Franz Liszt and start telling him he's playing it all wrong and how he should really play the instrument. Worse, after Liszt has informed the "out of the box thinker" why the suggestion is wrong, the Thinker continues to argue the point, dismissively rejecting Liszt's rebuttals with hints that Liszt is closed-minded. In that situation, it is entirely reasonable for Liszt to point out that, given that the Thinker has no experience or training in the piano, such confidence (arrogance) is unjustified.

    Pointing out that someone is unqualified to hold strong opinions is not a reflection of a closed-minded attitude. It is simply an act of truthfulness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post

    It's as if someone who has never played the piano, and has only read popular descriptions of playing the piano, were to walk up to Franz Liszt and start telling him he's playing it all wrong and how he should really play the instrument. Worse, after Liszt has informed the "out of the box thinker" why the suggestion is wrong, the Thinker continues to argue the point, dismissively rejecting Liszt's rebuttals with hints that Liszt is closed-minded. In that situation, it is entirely reasonable for Liszt to point out that, given that the Thinker has no experience or training in the piano, such confidence (arrogance) is unjustified.
    Actually , I have witnessed such a situation. I was once invited to a wedding, the bride was a pianist. Amongst the guests there was a world class pianist. At the insistence of the bride, the world class pianist agreed to play a piece. We were all stunned to watch the bride interrupt the pianist midway through the part:

    "No,no, no, this is not how you play this piece. Move over, I'll show you."

    The pianist moved over and she finished the piece.

    A few months passed and her husband, who was my friend, brought her over to the ski resort where I was a professional instructor. He asked me to teach her. A few minutes into the lesson, she goes (you guessed it):

    "No,no,no, this is not how...."

    Without missing a beat, I told her:

    "Look, either I teach you how to ski or you teach me how to teach. Frankly, I am not interested in the latter".

    I did not hear a peep out of her for the rest of the lesson.
    tk421 and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Wow.

    So I presume she teaches Gordon Ramsay how to run a kitchen and Roger Federer how tennis racquets should be strung. I wonder how many neighbourhood BBQ hosts invite her as a guest ... more than once.
    tk421 and Cogito Ergo Sum like 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  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    I can only repeat what i said :

    Interpreting existing observations over and over again in exactly the same way , will not bring anything fresh to the table.(For instance, without wanting to go into the subject here, interpreting and hypothesizing on the fysical meaning of 'time slowing down'). Unfortunately even just placing such a question mark is perceived as offensive, or as the efforts of a crank.

    "Our way is the only way", as PhDemon once put it > This 'only way' did not come up with further answers for the discrepancy between GR and QM, or the further pinpointing of the fysical dynamics behind gravity, in a long long time. Perhaps a little self-criticism here would also be suitable.

    That skilled pianoplayer may play beautiful tunes, but the solo-act is far from refreshing in the last few decades.
    Perhaps allowing some other instruments to play along, might help to overcome this monotony.

    You could start by rediscovering the benign effects of elementary logic and reasoning, even a touch of intuition (blasphemy!),
    instead of reclaiming over and over for instance that time can run slower in certain situations.
    Perhaps elaborating more on that corellation with relative speed as a fysical dynamic, could bring some fresh hypotheses to the table.
    And since you switched me to the Alternative Idea section,wouldn't that make just a great workshop to organise for the physics students ?



    Watch it, this could turn into trash any moment now! Perhaps a pro-active move to the Trash Can might be able to prevent the potentially extreme damage to the scientific community...sigh..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,344
    ...and as I've also said repeating claims does not increase their accuracy... (BTW I don't recall ever saying " our way is the only way" link to where I did so please. Your plea to use elementary logic is amusing to me as you seem incapable of applying it yourself to your own ideas, the flaws in your "logic" and appeals to common sense have been pointed out ad nauseum but like the crank you are you ignore it and just repeat your nonsense (as you have in the post above).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I can only repeat what i said :

    Interpreting existing observations over and over again in exactly the same way , will not bring anything fresh to the table.(For instance, without wanting to go into the subject here, interpreting and hypothesizing on the fysical meaning of 'time slowing down'). Unfortunately even just placing such a question mark is perceived as offensive, or as the efforts of a crank.
    Well, yes, arbitrarily declaring that "freshness" should be the pre-eminent guiding principle is sort of a crank's position. Certainly, freshness for the sake of freshness is an empty quest. The scientific method doesn't care a whit about freshness. It does, however, care deeply about consistency with experiment.

    Forming new hypotheses is all well and good, but if you're guided by freshness first, rather than correctness, that is a problem. And the problem gets worse if you don't have deep knowledge of the mainstream, because you will not have a sufficient command of the domain to understand how intricately linked everything is. And you have not demonstrated anywhere near a mastery of the subject you propose to freshen. I don't mean that as a gratuitous insult; it is merely an observation based on your posts.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    After that touch of irony, i can add that you make wise comments, Tk421.

    But it was not me who pointed out the need for 'freshness' in this quest for Unification.
    Many others, including the scientific community, have indicated long before me that there is a serious crisis in that area.

    And i said a thousand times, i am not an anti-relativist, nuance and progress it what interests me.
    Which is why i focus on scientific papers that scan the edge of what is established, and sometimes make a leap, like Erik Verlinde, Oriti, Sindoni , Gielen(Max Planck Insitute), Padhmanaban, and my recent paper post, etc.

    Then i pretend for a moment they are correct, in order to hypothesize what the further implications of their statements would be, in combination with other papers.
    Such extrapolations and associations rely on human logic rather then scientific knowledge. It is not hard science, but usefull nevertheless, to develope new perspectives.


    I understand that, in this hobby of mine, i do not belong in 'hard science', i am more of a science affiliated philosopher.
    > There you have it : an attempt for self-criticism, as you asked for.
    Last edited by Noa Drake; May 22nd, 2014 at 04:16 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,344
    No response to :

    BTW I don't recall ever saying " our way is the only way" link to where I did so please.


    is that because you made it up?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    I did not make it up, i can't find it back, but you know very well we've had multiple disagreements on the subject, in many threads.

    The words 'way, our, not ' etc are to standard to have results come up in the search engine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I did not make it up,
    I think you'll find you did, see below...

    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    i can't find it back, but you know very well we've had multiple disagreements on the subject, in many threads.
    Yes , but I have never said : "Our way is the only way" you HAVE made this up. You are a dishonest as well as a crank.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    The words 'way, our, not ' etc are to standard to have results come up in the search engine.
    So you made up the "quote" from me without checking your source? Sadly this is indicative of your shoddy, pseudoscientific approach.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Perhaps elaborating more on that corellation with relative speed as a fysical dynamic, could bring some fresh hypotheses to the table.
    It would seem to me that this is exactly what Einsteinian SR does - it relates observers and their measurements to one another, and the only free parameter in that relationship is their relative velocity ( not just speed, btw ). The basic idea is really quite simple - all observers should see and experience the exact same laws of physics. This is possible only if these observers agree on the separation of events in space-time ( leaving gravity aside for the moment ), and if you continue on this train of thought you will find that all mathematical operations that leave the metric ( i.e. separation between events ) unchanged form a group, the elements of which are transformation matrices parametrised by a free parameter, the relative velocity, as well as a constant to relate space-like and time-like measurements. These matrices are precisely the Lorentz transformations, and the constant can be fixed by considering a specific case, such as electrodynamics - it then turns out that it coincides with the propagation velocity of electromagnetic radiation, a fact that is made plausible later on in the more general theory ( GR ).

    And i said a thousand times, i am not an anti-relativist, nuance and progress it what interests me.
    A commendable goal, but given the circumstances I would argue that advancements are made not by rejecting what is already well known, but rather by generalising existing models and applying them in new ways. For example, one could take two unrelated theories - such as GR and QFT - and ask what happens when you combine them. What do you get when you place a quantum field into a highly curved space-time, such as in the immediate vicinity of an event horizon ? Stephen Hawking asked himself this question in the early 1970s, and, upon doing the maths, found the concept of Hawking radiation. I am not saying that this phenomenon is physical fact ( it isn't, it is just a hypothesis ), rather I am using this as an example to explain what I mean by generalisation and advancement.

    Hopefully I am making sense here.

    Iis there data available of observed time dilatations at different moments, positions during the flights ?
    Measurements taken during the flights of both planes that is.
    There are various complication with this, mainly due to the fact that the stationary earth clocks and the travelling plane clock do not share the same notion of simultaneity. This is circumvented by considering not instantaneous clock readings at various points, but instead the total accumulated time on the clocks once they are brought back together at rest. Hypothetically, if we were able to consistently define some notion of simultaneity that everyone agrees on, and then compare the clocks at different points/instances, you would find the plane clock and the earth clock will show an increasing discrepancy the longer the flight lasts.

    instead of reclaiming over and over for instance that time can run slower in certain situations.
    Time isn't something that "runs" or "flows" - it's just a way to label events in space-time, and hence completely static. When we say "run slower" or "run faster", what we really mean is that measurements taken at different points do not agree, in the same way that barometric readings on a mountain and down at sea level don't agree. I have never really understood why such a notion would pose a problem to people - for example, the old Newtonian notion of gravity where invisible forces ( the nature of which was never explained ) act instantaneously across distances in perfect proportion to mass and density ( also unexplained ) seems far more problematic to me, yet many people seem to think it is somehow more "logic" and "common sense" than GR.

    Could you explain exactly why the notion of measurements being relative seems to be an issue to you ? I am really just curious on this point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    @Markus

    My answer here will be rather long, and be who knows how rediculous to who knows how many people, so be it.
    I keep persuing it. I very much doubt that the scientific community will suffer from it....,),
    those who might, can always look the other way, one is free to choose what to read.




    I hypothesize ( only a sub-hypothesis of the gravity hypothesis, not the core or the most important item) that the actual initial reference point of the relative speeds used for calculating the time dialatations,
    is not the centre of the earth, but the present sun's co-rotating medium. That being the larger context.

    We read our clocks on earth as they move relatively to the sun's co-rotating medium, that is our 'normal' situation here on earth, which also applies to our own' internal clocks' and any co-moving entities.

    Taken here the hypothetical initial situation then, that the clock would be present in the centre of the earth. As the initial condition.

    Now :
    A clock on the airplane moving east : the plane speed v + speed of earth's co-rotating medium w : v+w (w is earth rotation speed upgraded by the diametre at the flight height)
    A clock on the other airplane moving west : the plane speed v minus speed of earth's co-rotating medium w : v-w
    > If you take the centre of the earth as the reference point, then all is well after the flights are over , done 360 degrees, measurements taken.

    >But if you were to measure after for instance 180 degrees, then the actual reference point (sun's medium) would cause a plus and minus affect going the first 180 degrees, followed then by a minus and plus effect (and viceversa) in the next 180 degrees. This would show up on the intermediate taken time comparisons.

    The purpose of that would be to add credibility the idea of a fysically present Planck level sized particle medium that influences the clocks,
    a medium that co-rotates with a massive object due to placement of the object in the medium,
    showing a metric which is the mathematical representation of a sperically distributed particle medium
    with spherically increasing density towards the centre.
    And also showing a mathematical correllation between 'time' slowing down and the intended relative speed.
    Time slowing down then stands fysically for density increase of the 'fysical spacetime'.

    (>My fysical interpretation of the mathematical concept 'spacetime')

    Backed up by my argumentation that time is not fundamental, but a tool used by our minds to structure the succession of events.
    Hence time itself does not slow down (visualised by the clocks),
    but the internal oscillations of any relatively moving entity slow down due to a density increase they are moving through.
    (Note that a classical clock relies on the exchange of Ep into Ek at a certain pace)

    Caused by either entering a denser medium the closer to the earth (gravitational dilatation),
    or caused by an imitation of that effect (kinetic time dilatation).


    And how can a density increase towards the centre make an apple fall down ?
    You standing on the earth with a pressure effect(*) present could explain you not going up, but if you were to drop out of an high flying airplane,
    you would be expected to get slowed down by this increasing density, that would be a fundamental critique, explanation will follow.

    * : Pressure as a certain volume of particles ('spacetime) present on a spherical surface area at a distance R from the centre, causing the movement (Ep into Ek due to pressure difference at different distances R) :

    g = (G x M) / R² > if G contains 1/4pi x space density

    Resulting in (mass / space density) over surface area > Volume per surface area



    I performed a parallel experiment with neutral oildrops in water, on a water surface in a circular container (like petridish).
    The small drop moves litterally towars the larger drop in the dish, on the water surface, actually partly under the surface aswell.

    >The water does the work, because the oil drops don't naturally attract one another.

    >The imitation of elasticity of the medium (thus capable of storing Ep), is here the pressure on the water surface due to gravity
    in combination with the counter-reaction of the static circular edge of the dish.

    Yet we know that the density of the water is increasing towards the centre of the big drop.
    How is this possible then ? > Related to osmosis, entropy. The medium (water) is increasing its degrees of freedom by means of expelling the small drop, while the watermolecules are moving along the path of least resistance

    My interpretation for gravity :

    An apple moves towards the centre : in front of the apple : exponentially increasing density of the medium it is moving in (configured in spherically 'holographic' layers)
    (compare to a ball placed in a cubic metre of a block of foam > decreasing density away from the centre of the ball, is what the foam would reconfigure to.)

    > The medium stores more Ep in front of the apple then it does behind the apple.
    >The medium particles move away from the centre due to Ep turning into Ek, and this along the path of least resistance > towards the backside of the apple, where the density is lower, and were the Ep is also lower. COnsequently the apple moves towards the centre simultaneously.
    The closer the apple gets to the centre, the higher the difference in Ep in front compared to at the back of the apple > accellaration proportional to the spacial density difference as a result.



    I am currently persuing an idea in which this dynamic described above, is replaced by the concept were these medium particles make that flow within atoms.
    What i mean is that a hammer falling down is then considered as a group of individually responding mass items,
    each experiencing that same fysical dynamic (Ep to Ek by the surrounding medium particles etc).

    That explains why the feather makes the same accellaration, regardless of any mass or shape of any kind of the 2 objects.
    It is like dropping one tennis ball or dropping a hundred tennis balls, same accellaration is obvious here.

    As yet unfinished, and presented in a nutshell, and without illustrations.


    P.S. Another sub-hypothesis on propagation of light :

    Light propagates sinusoïdally around these individual medium particles of 'spacetime'.
    Entering a denser area : particles closer together, but more particles in line per unit of distance > increase in frequency, and vise versa for redshift.
    -Constant speed of light : Obtained if the increase in frequency coïnsides with a smaller amplitude.
    > You will mathematicallly notice that the distance travelled in the denser medium is the same as in the less dense medium.
    > Imagine 3 circles aligned in one larger circle > perfectly identical 'snake'-lenght travelled as travelled along half the large circle.
    -Decrease of light speed in case of travelling nearby a very massive object > further density increase will eventually cause obstruction for the light to keep the same speed >' inside turn' of the light beam slows down compared to outside > bending of light.
    >Then add the effect of the curvature in that area > twice the angle.
    Last edited by Noa Drake; May 22nd, 2014 at 07:22 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,344
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    No response to :

    BTW I don't recall ever saying " our way is the only way" link to where I did so please.


    is that because you made it up?
    Still waiting for the link or for you to admit you made it up.

    As for post #62 I didn't read it, on past form it will just be a re-hash of all the crackpot ideas we have already pointed out don't work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    No response to :

    BTW I don't recall ever saying " our way is the only way" link to where I did so please.


    is that because you made it up?
    Still waiting for the link or for you to admit you made it up.

    As for post #62 I didn't read it, on past form it will just be a re-hash of all the crackpot ideas we have already pointed out don't work.
    I knew you could act childish sometimes, but this is getting sad, i told you i know you wrote it.
    By the way, is that such a shock to you ? You reflect that mentality of 'our way' here every day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,344
    It is not childish or sad to state you dishonestly fabricated a quote from me to make a strawman to argue against. It is not childish or sad to point out this typical crank behaviour. It is not childish or sad to ask you to back up your claim or withdraw it and apologise.

    I did not write it, you have just compounded your lie. What is a shock to me is how intellectually dishonest you are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    It is not childish or sad to state you dishonestly fabricated a quote from me to make a strawman to argue against. It is not childish or sad to point out this typical crank behaviour. It is not childish or sad to ask you to back up your claim or withdraw it and apologise.

    I did not write it, you have just compounded your lie. What is a shock to me is how intellectually dishonest you are.
    Please get another hobby besides harassing me.
    For someone who put me on the ignore list, you are 'rather present' in my thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,344
    I suggest you get a new hobby, studying physics rather than making shit up. Also it is not harassment, you lied, I am pointing it out. I am waiting for an apology too. You go on about mutually respectful communication (in post #34 for example) how respectful is it for you to fabricate quotes and misrepresent the views of another poster?

    As for the ignore list I reset it after my accidental ban (and do so periodically) -- it is also typical crank behaviour to try and divert the thread in the way you have here to avoid admitting your dishonesty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    It is not harassment, you lied, I am pointing it out. I am waiting for an apology too.

    As for the ignore list I reset it after my accidental ban -- it is also typical crank behaviour to try and divert the thread in the way you have here to avoid admitting your dishonesty.
    "You lied about me that fact that i lied" > and so on and so on....

    Apologise to the man who insulted me so many times over the course of about 10 months ??
    Apologise to the man who speaks of on this forum as "...this is why we laugh at Noa..." ??
    Apologise to the man who speaks of me here as"..Also any thread started by theorist or Noa Drake are pretty ridculous and good for a laugh..." ??

    > Get real
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,344
    I never lied though. These "insults" were a true and fair opinion of you as a physicist. You are ignorant, you are laughable, you are a crank. You have in this thread shown yourself to be a liar too. I'm done with this thread, arguing with dishonest idiots is pointless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Wow.

    So I presume she teaches Gordon Ramsay how to run a kitchen and Roger Federer how tennis racquets should be strung. I wonder how many neighbourhood BBQ hosts invite her as a guest ... more than once.
    You are right, this is exactly what goes on with her.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    @Markus

    My answer here will be rather long, and be who knows how rediculous to who knows how many people, so be it.
    I keep persuing it. I very much doubt that the scientific community will suffer from it....,),
    those who might, can always look the other way, one is free to choose what to read.




    I hypothesize ( only a sub-hypothesis of the gravity hypothesis, not the core or the most important item) that the actual initial reference point of the relative speeds used for calculating the time dialatations,
    is not the centre of the earth, but the present sun's co-rotating medium. That being the larger context.

    We read our clocks on earth as they move relatively to the sun's co-rotating medium, that is our 'normal' situation here on earth, which also applies to our own' internal clocks' and any co-moving entities.

    Taken here the hypothetical initial situation then, that the clock would be present in the centre of the earth. As the initial condition.

    Now :
    A clock on the airplane moving east : the plane speed v + speed of earth's co-rotating medium w : v+w (w is earth rotation speed upgraded by the diametre at the flight height)
    A clock on the other airplane moving west : the plane speed v minus speed of earth's co-rotating medium w : v-w
    > If you take the centre of the earth as the reference point, then all is well after the flights are over , done 360 degrees, measurements taken.

    >But if you were to measure after for instance 180 degrees, then the actual reference point (sun's medium) would cause a plus and minus affect going the first 180 degrees, followed then by a minus and plus effect (and viceversa) in the next 180 degrees. This would show up on the intermediate taken time comparisons.

    The purpose of that would be to add credibility the idea of a fysically present Planck level sized particle medium that influences the clocks,
    a medium that co-rotates with a massive object due to placement of the object in the medium,
    showing a metric which is the mathematical representation of a sperically distributed particle medium
    with spherically increasing density towards the centre.
    And also showing a mathematical correllation between 'time' slowing down and the intended relative speed.
    Time slowing down then stands fysically for density increase of the 'fysical spacetime'.

    (>My fysical interpretation of the mathematical concept 'spacetime')

    Backed up by my argumentation that time is not fundamental, but a tool used by our minds to structure the succession of events.
    Hence time itself does not slow down (visualised by the clocks),
    but the internal oscillations of any relatively moving entity slow down due to a density increase they are moving through.
    (Note that a classical clock relies on the exchange of Ep into Ek at a certain pace)

    Caused by either entering a denser medium the closer to the earth (gravitational dilatation),
    or caused by an imitation of that effect (kinetic time dilatation).


    And how can a density increase towards the centre make an apple fall down ?
    You standing on the earth with a pressure effect(*) present could explain you not going up, but if you were to drop out of an high flying airplane,
    you would be expected to get slowed down by this increasing density, that would be a fundamental critique, explanation will follow.

    * : Pressure as a certain volume of particles ('spacetime) present on a spherical surface area at a distance R from the centre, causing the movement (Ep into Ek due to pressure difference at different distances R) :

    g = (G x M) / R² > if G contains 1/4pi x space density

    Resulting in (mass / space density) over surface area > Volume per surface area



    I performed a parallel experiment with neutral oildrops in water, on a water surface in a circular container (like petridish).
    The small drop moves litterally towars the larger drop in the dish, on the water surface, actually partly under the surface aswell.

    >The water does the work, because the oil drops don't naturally attract one another.

    >The imitation of elasticity of the medium (thus capable of storing Ep), is here the pressure on the water surface due to gravity
    in combination with the counter-reaction of the static circular edge of the dish.

    Yet we know that the density of the water is increasing towards the centre of the big drop.
    How is this possible then ? > Related to osmosis, entropy. The medium (water) is increasing its degrees of freedom by means of expelling the small drop, while the watermolecules are moving along the path of least resistance

    My interpretation for gravity :

    An apple moves towards the centre : in front of the apple : exponentially increasing density of the medium it is moving in (configured in spherically 'holographic' layers)
    (compare to a ball placed in a cubic metre of a block of foam > decreasing density away from the centre of the ball, is what the foam would reconfigure to.)

    > The medium stores more Ep in front of the apple then it does behind the apple.
    >The medium particles move away from the centre due to Ep turning into Ek, and this along the path of least resistance > towards the backside of the apple, where the density is lower, and were the Ep is also lower. COnsequently the apple moves towards the centre simultaneously.
    The closer the apple gets to the centre, the higher the difference in Ep in front compared to at the back of the apple > accellaration proportional to the spacial density difference as a result.



    I am currently persuing an idea in which this dynamic described above, is replaced by the concept were these medium particles make that flow within atoms.
    What i mean is that a hammer falling down is then considered as a group of individually responding mass items,
    each experiencing that same fysical dynamic (Ep to Ek by the surrounding medium particles etc).

    That explains why the feather makes the same accellaration, regardless of any mass or shape of any kind of the 2 objects.
    It is like dropping one tennis ball or dropping a hundred tennis balls, same accellaration is obvious here.

    As yet unfinished, and presented in a nutshell, and without illustrations.


    P.S. Another sub-hypothesis on propagation of light :

    Light propagates sinusoïdally around these individual medium particles of 'spacetime'.
    Entering a denser area : particles closer together, but more particles in line per unit of distance > increase in frequency, and vise versa for redshift.
    -Constant speed of light : Obtained if the increase in frequency coïnsides with a smaller amplitude.
    > You will mathematicallly notice that the distance travelled in the denser medium is the same as in the less dense medium.
    > Imagine 3 circles aligned in one larger circle > perfectly identical 'snake'-lenght travelled as travelled along half the large circle.
    -Decrease of light speed in case of travelling nearby a very massive object > further density increase will eventually cause obstruction for the light to keep the same speed >' inside turn' of the light beam slows down compared to outside > bending of light.
    >Then add the effect of the curvature in that area > twice the angle.
    Wow! You are way out there in the sticks! Instead of wasting your time making up such nonsense you could have used your time in better ways by studying physics. If you studied FIRST, you wouldn't have made up this garbage.
    To prove to you it is garbage, let's do a simple exercise.

    1. Use your above hypothesis to explain the results of the Haefele Keating experiment. Please use math, your "prose" doesn't count as physics.
    2. Explain the results of the Shapiro delay (light bending by the Sun). Please use math, your "prose"......
    scoobydoo1 and PhDemon like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    What type of commitment did i make then, what promise did i make in this thread, which was first of all a QUESTION in post 1,
    then, not by me,moved to Personal Theories without any display of a theory or hypothesis of any kind.

    I did say somewhere in this thread that i was developing a hypothesis and that after learning and learning, i would some day post it to the best of my abilities.

    Here i responded to Markus' 'why' question.

    So fantasize on your inquisition in your own imagination, thank you.




    In my world a multidisciplinary team would start working together on such a problem solving issue,
    until it would become substantial. Then an assessment would take place, and the team would continu etc.
    Your attitude is nowhere near such a modus operandi.
    Last edited by Noa Drake; May 22nd, 2014 at 09:26 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    In my world a multidisciplinary team would start working together on such a problem solving issue,
    until it would become substantial.
    But a team IS ALREADY working on problem solving, several of us are working in pointing out the misconceptions in your "theories". This is because you are too lazy to learn physics and find the errors for yourself. See this thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    The purpose of that would be to add credibility the idea of a fysically present Planck level sized particle medium that influences the clocks,
    a medium that co-rotates with a massive object due to placement of the object in the medium,
    So it seems you are proposing to go back to the old "aether" concepts, adapted to your own ideas.

    showing a metric which is the mathematical representation of a sperically distributed particle medium
    That's not what a metric is. A metric is a mathematical entity that enables us to define the notion of distance between points, and hence the concepts of length, angles, and unit measurements ( segments, areas, volumes,... ). It also induces a topology, but it has nothing to do with particle distributions.

    Backed up by my argumentation that time is not fundamental, but a tool used by our minds to structure the succession of events.
    The same holds true for space, which is a structured set of points.

    I appreciate you taking the time to type all of this up; however, my honest opinion is that you are introducing a lot of unnecessary complications into something that is at heart very simple. I am not certain whether you even realise that. GR really only postulates one thing - that measurements between events are influenced by the presence of energy-momentum ( that is a postulate, it cannot be justified by the theory itself ); in fact, once expressed using appropriate mathematical objects, the two are equal, up to a proportionality constant. Everything else, including the GR field equations, then follows from mathematical considerations, specifically via the topological principle that the boundary of a boundary is always zero. Alternatively, GR can also be directly derived as a generalisation of Newtonian gravity : Derivation of General Relativity

    Your idea on the other hand relies on a number of assumptions - the existence of particles on the Planck scale ( which, btw, is a very dubious concept ), a set of very specific properties and dynamics of those particles to make it work and remain in accord with empirical data, and a very specific way this aether interacts with other matter and radiation. You are trying extremely hard to find a mechanical explanation for something that is quite simply not mechanical in nature.

    You have to understand that when it comes down to it, the sciences will always go with the model that requires the least assumptions and postulates, and, given that, is the simplest. Your model isn't simple at all; it requires too many assumptions and postulates, and even then does not follow from Newtonian gravity. If you examine your idea in detail, you find that it is extremely hard to justify things like gravitational time dilation by mechanical processes - for example, we know that all types of clocks are affected equally by time dilation, regardless of how they work. A digital clock is affected the exact same as a light clock, which is affected the exact same as a mechanical clock, which is affected the exact same as an unstable elementary particle that does not have any internal structure at all. The laws of GR make no reference whatsoever to the type of clock used - and it doesn't need to, because under GR there is no mechanical interaction, it is the measurements of time itself that are what leads to gravity. You allude vaguely to density increases and such, but offer no explanation how and why this would affect all types of clocks in the exact same way, regardless of their mechanism.

    I have no doubt that if you keep trying hard enough, you might come up with something that might closely mimic the GR results for a specific scenario, such as a rotating spherically symmetric weak-field set-up ( e.g. Earth ); however, you need to also understand that GR itself is much more general than this, and can be applied to all kinds of gravitational physics. We could abandon the spherical symmetry, and GR gives us an appropriate metric. Or we could abandon the requirement for the mass to be stationary and static, and GR will give the appropriate metric. We can consider the interior of masses, and GR will give us appropriate models of space-time and the associated relativistic fluid dynamics. Or we can consider other forms of energy, such as EM fields and induced stresses, and GR will tell us exactly what the gravitational consequences are. And all of this from just one assumption - that energy-momentum determines a certain combination of components of the curvature tensor, up to a proportionality constant. It doesn't really get any simpler than that.

    Don't take this as an attack, I am merely trying to provide constructive criticism as to why I don't think you are on the right track with this.
    scoobydoo1, AlexG and Howard Roark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    In my world a multidisciplinary team would start working together on such a problem solving issue,
    until it would become substantial.
    But a team IS ALREADY working on problem solving, several of us are working in pointing out the misconceptions in your "theories". This is because you are too lazy to learn physics and find the errors for yourself. See this thread.
    Thank you Team !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Thanks for the comments Markus.

    But old aether concepts like aether wind have nothing to do with it.


    You are not excluding that spacetime may one day be observed as discrete, so you said once.
    The idea that it consists of planck size units, particles, means exactly that they make up the spacial grid for objects to move in.
    The spherical shells distribution of them, away from the centre, follows a density decrease proportional to the inverse square law,
    making up the correct grid for both gravity behaviour and emr. They use the same particles but with a different means, dynamic of propagation.
    I persue this a.o. because Einstein reasoned that 2 fields : 1 for gravity and 1 for EMR, would make no sense, the start of his unification search.
    My view is that this requires a fysical means for propagation. I know that Einstein did not at all like a concept with a particle medium though.


    However, a solution must go in the direction of unification with QM.
    A once homogenous universe of plank size particles contracting together into visible matter, giving rise to my type of 'spacetime', is what a have considered.
    GR does not meet the specs for unification with QM, so keeping the good parts and altering certain sections is not a bad idea i think.


    Just to give some additional motivation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    One more comment on my belief in a 'mechanical' solution. Planck size particle configuration and local displacement i would call it.

    If action at a distance does not exist, what do you have left at the end of the day, if you want a deeper explanation for gravity that translates the mathematical concepts to the fysical world ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Thanks for the comments Markus.

    But old aether concepts like aether wind have nothing to do with it.


    You are not excluding that spacetime may one day be observed as discrete, so you said once.
    The idea that it consists of planck size units, particles, means exactly that they make up the spacial grid for objects to move in.
    The spherical shells distribution of them, away from the centre, follows a density decrease proportional to the inverse square law,
    making up the correct grid for both gravity behaviour and emr. They use the same particles but with a different means, dynamic of propagation.
    I persue this a.o. because Einstein reasoned that 2 fields : 1 for gravity and 1 for EMR, would make no sense, the start of his unification search.
    My view is that this requires a fysical means for propagation. I know that Einstein did not at all like a concept with a particle medium though.


    However, a solution must go in the direction of unification with QM.
    A once homogenous universe of plank size particles contracting together into visible matter, giving rise to my type of 'spacetime', is what a have considered.
    GR does not meet the specs for unification with QM, so keeping the good parts and altering certain sections is not a bad idea i think.


    Just to give some additional motivation.
    I'll have Ranch with the above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    You are not excluding that spacetime may one day be observed as discrete, so you said once.
    Yes, indeed. Just bear in mind though that a discreet space-time isn't the same as a space-time somehow being a medium of particles. A discrete space-time means that measurements of distance, angles and curvature will take on a discrete spectrum.

    The spherical shells distribution of them, away from the centre, follows a density decrease proportional to the inverse square law,
    That is not what we observe in the real universe, though. The inverse square law is a convenient approximation, but no more. Gravity is in actual fact a little more complicated than this, as the empirical data demonstrates.

    1 for gravity and 1 for EMR, would make no sense, the start of his unification search.
    Yes - it must be said that he made a valiant attempt, but in the end he didn't get anywhere with it.

    My view is that this requires a fysical means for propagation.
    I'm sorry, but I don't share this view. In my mind, neither EM nor gravity require a medium in the classical sense. Having said that, I concede that there is one important outstanding question, and that is what the underlying connection between quantum fields and space-time is - but I doubt that the answer will be found in classical mechanics.

    However, a solution must go in the direction of unification with QM.
    I agree.

    GR does not meet the specs for unification with QM
    Of course not, since it is a purely classical theory. The reverse is true also - quantum physics has nothing to say about the geometry of space-time. Hence the difficulty in trying to unify them into a consistent model of quantum gravity.

    If action at a distance does not exist, what do you have left at the end of the day, if you want a deeper explanation for gravity that translates the mathematical concepts to the fysical world ?
    Geometry. That's why GR works so beautifully, because no "action" or "force" is required.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    I believe that, as long as one does not investigate what goes on beyond this 'geometry', you have escaped the necessary discussions on 'action' and 'force'. All looks 'elegant', alas only on the macrolevel. Ep turning into Ek is not exactly 'alien' science, its as basic as you can get.

    Further, in the above nutshell explanation i did not include the effects of the sun spinning.
    That is what a.o. provides the drag, and the equator plane (a horizontal symmetry line in 2D view) where the planets are located when in orbit.




    What systems, causalities does GR provide to have multiple planets be placed simultaneously on that plane when in orbit,
    And not under or above it ? What behaviour of the continuous fabric of spacetime makes this happen ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I believe that,
    What you believe is irrelevant.

    as long as one does not investigate
    What you are doing is not investigating, it is posting crackpotery.




    What systems, causalities does GR provide to have multiple planets be placed simultaneously on that plane when in orbit,
    The planets do not share the same plane, you should take a break from posting crank stuff and use your time to take a class.

    Here, study this.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    you have escaped the necessary discussions on 'action' and 'force'
    Gravity is not a force in GR, so there is no "action over distance". That is a problem only in Newtonian gravity, which doesn't offer any solution to this conundrum.

    Ep turning into Ek is not exactly 'alien' science, its as basic as you can get.
    The Lagrangian of a test particle in GR is



    How do you propose to consistently split this into a kinetic and potential part ? You are right that it is trivial in Newtonian mechanics where the Lagrangian is linear, but with GR being a non-linear field theory things are a little more complex, I'm afraid.

    What systems, causalities does GR provide to have multiple planets be placed simultaneously on that plane when in orbit,
    And not under or above it ? What behaviour of the continuous fabric of spacetime makes this happen ?
    I am not really sure what you mean by this. The orbits are approximately coplanar because they all formed from the same accretion disk when the solar system was young. A spinning disk will flatten because this represents the lowest state of mechanical energy for a dissipative/dispersive system while at the same time conserving angular momentum. The principle is no different in GR than it is in Newtonian mechanics, only the mathematics are more complex - you obtain that result from the Langevin-Landau-Lifschitz metric through a rather lengthy battle with some nasty algebra. Remember that in the weak-field limit GR reduces to Newtonian gravitation, so unless the accretion disk spins at relativistic speeds ( highly unlikely in the case of the solar system ), the two will coincide and give the same results in this instance.

    To make a long story short - what's at play here is the very general principle of physics that all systems tend towards their state of lowest overall energy. This applies to Newton as well as GR.
    Howard Roark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Exactly, the lowest state of mechanical energy,couldn't agree more on that.
    Why is it so strange that a planck level rotative dynamic around the sun would form the gravitational layout to form such a plane ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Why is it so strange that a planck level rotative dynamic around the sun would form the gravitational layout to form such a plane ?
    That would be very strange indeed, because gravity alone wouldn't flatten the accretion disk, so there would be no plane. You need dissipative forces within the material as well, as I have mentioned in my last post, or else the state of lowest energy would be a rotating sphere. This scenario is not purely a gravitational problem, but an interplay between mechanical interactions, gravity, and average angular momentum distribution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    @xyzt

    There is a deviation from that plane of about 1 degree...bravo.

    I suppose i can call your beliefs irrelevant also then :
    -continuous nature of spacetime
    -time can run slow

    It is all perfect, yet something is in need of serious clarification and completion.
    You refuse to see that. Good luck on the road to zero progress.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Why is it so strange that a planck level rotative dynamic around the sun would form the gravitational layout to form such a plane ?
    That would be very strange indeed, because gravity alone wouldn't flatten the accretion disk, so there would be no plane. You need dissipative forces within the material as well, as I have mentioned in my last post, or else the state of lowest energy would be a rotating sphere. This scenario is not purely a gravitational problem, but an interplay between mechanical interactions, gravity, and average angular momentum distribution.
    I agree. Consider that the more you go towards the poles, the less angular speed the earth will transfer onto the corotative 'spacetime'
    Hense the equator plane fades out further.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    @xyzt

    There is a deviation from that plane of about 1 degree...bravo.
    It is more than 1 degree, you need to learn rather than wasting your life spamming the forum with your crank ideas.
    The link I gave you also explains how the planets arrived to their current orbits. The explanation dates back to Laplace, hundreds of years. Time you stop posting crank stuff and you started learning


    I suppose i can call your beliefs irrelevant also then :
    -continuous nature of spacetime
    -time can run slow
    I am not here to discuss your anti0mainstream ideas. There is mental specialists for this, I am not a psychiatrist.

    It is all perfect, yet something is in need of serious clarification and completion.
    You refuse to see that. Good luck on the road to zero progress.
    Crackpots like you never discover anything. Because they bask in their ignorance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    I have often wondered why it is that a large group of theoretical scientists cannot distinguish between a healthy admiration of Einsteins work, and an adoration that deprives them of real objectivity to make nuances. Because throughout the course of history, it was always science itself that has pointed out the systems at work behind 'observed counterintuitive phenomenons'. Not so in the case of 'time running slow'. Why does science not apply the same down to earth approach in the case of this intangeable, non proven proposition ? We ought to know that shadows on a wall, accurately as they may be mapped in behaviour, are only a reflection of very classical behaviour going on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I have often wondered why it is that a large group of theoretical scientists cannot distinguish between a healthy admiration of Einsteins work, and an adoration that deprives them of real objectivity to make nuances.
    I have often wondered why it is that ignorant cranks think that people only believe relativity because of Einstein and are unable to see the objective evidence.

    Quick test: would erasing all knowledge of Albert Einstein from everyone's brain make any difference to modern physics? No.

    It is only crackpots (and journalists) who fetishise Einstein, Darwin, et al.
    PhDemon likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Why do cranks claim to know what large numbers of scientists, whom they've never met, spoken to, or even heard of, think about Einstein?
    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  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    I have often wondered why it is that a large group of theoretical scientists cannot distinguish between a healthy admiration of Einsteins work, and an adoration that deprives them of real objectivity to make nuances.
    I have often wondered why it is that ignorant cranks think that people only believe relativity because of Einstein and are unable to see the objective evidence.

    Quick test: would erasing all knowledge of Albert Einstein from everyone's brain make any difference to modern physics? No.

    It is only crackpots (and journalists) who fetishise Einstein, Darwin, et al.
    You have fun maintaining the caricature of the crank,yet you never answer to the critical questions i ask, not here and not before,just denial.
    It is the easiest way out to say 'crank'.
    And obviously the person of Einstein has nothing to do with it, he was about a thousand times more open minded and in doubt then his admirers.,hence a true scientist. He was perfectly in favor of adjusting and completing his own theory.
    But on this forum his theory has almost the status of an absolute truth, not open for real discussion, all debate ends in 'crank'.

    You are clearly having an Einstein fetish, not me.

    And once again : there is no 'objective evidence' for 'time itself running slow' and the continuous nature of spacetime, so why do you keep repeating that to me like a robot for months ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Not so in the case of 'time running slow'.
    Noa, Einstein's GR tells us exactly why clocks run slower in presence of massive bodies, and why distances there are stretched ( which is the same phenomenon ). The issue is that you do not seem to like the explanation, because it somehow doesn't make sense to you. To be quite frank, that problem is yours, it is not an issue with the model.

    At the same time you seem to have no problem accepting Newtonian gravitation, which proposes forces the nature of which are unexplained, propagating at infinite speed.

    Why does science not apply the same down to earth approach in the case of this intangeable, non proven proposition ?
    Come on Noa, please don't be ridiculous now ! I have absolutely no problem talking to you and trying to convey some of my own understanding of GR, but you in turn need to remain open to the empirical facts and not allow yourself to be blinded by your own personal and philosophical opinions on this matter.

    Here is what physics does - it takes empirical data obtained through experiment and observation. It proposes a self-consistent model which offers an understanding and explanation for this data. It then utilises this model by inputting some boundary conditions, and obtaining a prediction as output. It then takes this numerical prediction and compares it again to experiment and observation - if the prediction holds true we have a good model, and continue to test it again and again. If the prediction does not hold, we go back and either discard or amend the original model, and restart the cycle. This is the scientific method.

    Now apply this to GR. We know that Newtonian gravity is inconsistent with empirical data under certain conditions. GR proposes to model gravitation via a space-time manifold endowed with a connection and a metric tensor field instead, and based on this proposes a very specific relationship between the metric tensor field and the energy-momentum tensor field. We input boundary conditions into that relationship, and calculate a metric, which allows us to calculate world lines. We compare the geometry of these calculated world lines to empirical data, and find that it is in excellent accord with empirically observed effects of gravitation, exhibiting non of the issues that plagued Newton's model.

    So as you can see science uses the scientific method on GR just as it uses it on any other theory. GR has become the mainstream because it passes the scientific method and gives us a good model for how gravity works. Whether or not it "makes sense" or is "elegant" to you or anyone else is not a consideration in the scientific method - it just needs to be self-consistent and produce the correct results, which it is and which it does. It is perfectly tangible ( the metric tensor is really just measurements performed with clocks and rulers - it is not some invisible "material" that is stretched and deformed ), and it is hence perfectly testable. Like all other theories in physics, it can never be proven, it can just continue to be tested.

    It is tacitly understood that the domain of applicability of GR is limited - it is purely classical, and while it gives us a relationship between energy-momentum and gravity, and cannot explain why the relationship is the way it is. GR is not a theory of everything, it is just a model of classical gravitation, not more but also no less.

    I understand that you can't accept the fact that GR contains no mechanical explanations for gravity, but your failure to do so and more so your insistence that a mechanical explanation is fundamentally required by nature is your problem alone, not GR's. The scientific method applies to you just as it does to GR - stop arguing your philosophical beliefs, and just give us a model that does an equal or better job of modelling the dynamics of gravitation without requiring more postulates or assumptions than GR. If you can do that, and it passes the scientific method, then you are on to something.

    As for whether or not space-time and its non-trivial geometry can be proven to exist - the answer is no, it can't, not any more than invisible instantaneously acting forces can be proven to exist in Newtonian mechanics. But we can make measurement using rulers and clocks and light signals ( just as Newton could make measurements with a force meter ), and we find that such measurements correspond precisely to the results the non-trivial manifolds of GR give us. As such, it is a good model, but it is certainly not the final word - but we have known that for a century.

    To make a long story even longer - your desire for there to be a mechanical explanation of gravity does not mean that nature actually requires it to be mechanical. There is no evidence whatsoever for such a requirement, the only evidence we have at hand is the empirically testable fact that our model which uses curved space-times appears to be working very well. Besides, there are plenty of indications to suggest that the universe is most certainly not mechanical in its fundamental workings. You seem to be confusing your personal opinions with the universe itself, and that is not how science works, and it is a very bad trap to get stuck in. Personally, I also have a deep dislike of quantum field theories - they just don't feel "right" to me, but I accept the empirical fact that the SM is in very good accord with experiment and observation, so I concede that my gut feeling may just be wrong, and I shall endeavor to go and learn all I can about QFTs. It would never occur to me to reject it based on my personal opinion or feeling, whatever that may be.

    I suggest you either re-think your approach, or quite simply give us a finished model that can be tested using the scientific method, because at the end of the day that is the one and only measuring stick that can determine the value of your model. That is the very purpose of the scientific method - to ensure the models we use are not tainted by subjective considerations, but are purely based on whether or not they are in accord with experiment and observation. And GR does very well in that regard, irrespective of whether or not the idea of a curved space-time is philosophically appealing.

    Also consider this - what you reject as insufficient is elegant and very appealing as an explanation for gravity to me. A mechanical model on the other hand would seem to me to be cumbersome, ugly, ad-hoc and ultimately wholly unsatisfactory, because I would immediately ask myself why your particles have the properties they have, and interact in the exact manner required to macroscopically produce gravitation as we see it without breaking any other physics in the process. They certainly don't arise from any of the symmetry groups of the standard model !
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; May 28th, 2014 at 04:07 AM.
    PhDemon and Howard Roark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    An extensive comment , thank you.

    Some remarks


    -Newtonian action at a distance is a fairy tail to me, i propose exactly the opposite : Planck scale action at 'no distance' regulating motion of matter, as explained earlier with Ep, Ek etc.


    -Clock measurements i certainly do not dispute,nor the usefullness of these corellations. It is the extrapolation to 'time' that i cannot agree with.


    -Hypothesizing on spacetime as a Plancksize particle dynamic (corotating and storing energy that induces motion) resulting in the correct predictions and obsevations, is an angle i persue because it could provide a bridge to QM. So what is this 'particle' ? Couldn't define that sharply, true, but then getting the concept right as a whole is the first concern. When you turn to the fabric of spacetime as a motion regulating system, then eventually it performs an action on matter of some kind, causing motion. Otherwise it would be action at a distance, and we do not like that. Hence a material interpretation of this spacetime is defendable.




    -Generally speaking :


    The intelligence of any group, for instance the scientific community investigating gravity, unified theory etc,
    relies greatly on diversity.
    Take the internet,google. If every 'braincell' , that's us, uploaded exactly the same page of information, then google would be the most stupid system of intelligence available.
    This is indeed a critique i have. An atmosphere is created where it is most favourable to think and express the same thing as everybody else, for instance on the subject of gravity. Where are students in theoretical physics encouraged to think independently ? And later on in their career, where are they allowed to deviate from the mainstream without getting their heads cut off ? Where is the think tank were mistakes are allowed and partial ideas stored for later use ? Where is this positive dynamic ? > It may be present among certain groups of professional scientists indeed, but certainly not on this forum in the hobby variation so to speak.


    Certainly i do not claim that i've got it right, but it is an independent developement that could contain usefull concepts, a contibution to diversity.
    It is just a hobby, let others persue their own angle of approach, and hopefully as many different ones as possible.
    Last edited by Noa Drake; May 29th, 2014 at 06:28 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Clock measurements i certainly do not dispute,nor the usefullness of these corellations. It is the extrapolation to 'time' that i cannot agree with.
    Clocks measuring time is not so much an extrapolation as it is a fundamental postulate of the model. You are free to argue that clocks don't measure time ( though it is beyond me personally why anyone would argue that ), but you must also realise that the model built on this assumption works remarkably well.

    When you turn to the fabric of spacetime as a motion regulating system
    That's already the case in GR - the geometry of space-time necessarily determines the geometry of world lines in it. Except of course that no mechanical processes are required.

    then eventually it performs an action on matter of some kind, causing motion
    On the surface of the earth, longitudinal lines approach and meet at the poles. Does the surface of the earth perform an action on longitudinal lines, in order for them to meet at the pole ?

    The intelligence of any group, for instance the scientific community investigating gravity, unified theory etc,
    relies greatly on diversity.
    To this I can wholeheartedly agree, or else everything would come to a standstill.

    Where are students in theoretical physics encouraged to think independently ?
    I can't answer that since I never myself went to university. I taught myself the maths and physics at home, in my spare time, just as a hobby. What I do when I come across a new concept is I go and collect information from several sources, such as textbooks, PDFs, online courses etc, and collate them into my own little notebook, developing an understanding by looking at it from several ( often very disparate ) points of view. I then try to do exercises on it as much as that is possible for me - I find that understanding comes mostly through application. This takes a considerable amount of independent thinking, because most textbooks I consult will only outline an exercise problem in very general terms, and leave the student to figure out the rest; often this requires bringing together material/ideas/concepts from several different areas of physics and maths, and combining them in new ways.

    In general terms though it must be said that there is a certain amount of basic facts that just need to be internalised and taken for granted - if you question every single time that 1+1=2, you will never get anywhere. Independent thinking is good, but only if applied in the right situations.

    And later on in their career, where are they allowed to deviate from the mainstream without getting their heads cut off ?
    Everyone is allowed to deviate from the mainstream - that's what the peer-review process is there for. So long as it is based on sound science, deviations will generally be accepted for publication ( not rejections of the mainstream though - these are very different things ! ). Of course those ideas will be vigorously attacked, but then I believe that is a very good thing. When Stephen Hawking first presented his ideas on Hawking radiation, he good literally torn to shreds in peer review - radiating black holes ? Who had ever heard of such a ridiculous thing ! Heresy ! Madness ! Yet to date the concept persists, and is now almost ( but not quite ) mainstream, since his reasoning and maths are all sound. It is now almost mainstream precisely because it was subjected to rigorous scrutiny and attack, and withstood all of these. It's a good thing.

    Certainly i do not claim that i've got it right, but it is an independent developement that could contain usefull concepts, a contibution to diversity.
    It is just a hobby, let others persue their own angle of approach, and hopefully as many different ones as possible.
    Agreed And like I said, GR is most certainly not going to be the last word either, there is still much to learn in the area of gravitational physics. That is why it is an area of ongoing and very active research.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    You have fun maintaining the caricature of the crank,yet you never answer to the critical questions i ask, not here and not before,just denial.

    I and others have answered your questions with great patience.

    You are clearly having an Einstein fetish, not me.
    No, I am the one pointing out that is nothing to do with "Einstein" and everything to do with the success of the theory. Come up with an equally successful model and soon their will be flood of anti-Drakeists claiming that people only accept the model because the great Drake said so.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Marcus said :

    I can't answer that since I never myself went to university. I taught myself the maths and physics at home, in my spare time, just as a hobby. What I do when I come across a new concept is I go and collect information from several sources, such as textbooks, PDFs, online courses etc, and collate them into my own little notebook, developing an understanding by looking at it from several ( often very disparate ) points of view. I then try to do exercises on it as much as that is possible for me - I find that understanding comes mostly through application. This takes a considerable amount of independent thinking, because most textbooks I consult will only outline an exercise problem in very general terms, and leave the student to figure out the rest; often this requires bringing together material/ideas/concepts from several different areas of physics and maths, and combining them in new ways.

    In general terms though it must be said that there is a certain amount of basic facts that just need to be internalised and taken for granted - if you question every single time that 1+1=2, you will never get anywhere. Independent thinking is good, but only if applied in the right situations.

    >> Most admirable, without question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Noa :

    then eventually it performs an action on matter of some kind, causing motion



    Markus :

    On the surface of the earth, longitudinal lines approach and meet at the poles. Does the surface of the earth perform an action on longitudinal lines, in order for them to meet at the pole ?


    >No, but the thing is that those lines are not there. We installed those lines as an conceptual overlay, virtually that is, to structurise some of the characteristics of this spherical object. The same is done with the spacetime concept. So i hypothesize that those worldlines refer to something real (local density differences etc),an underlying dynamic, reflected by this spacetime concept (the correlations theorized by Einstein, and later observed). Otherwise no movement of the visible matter would take place.

    The consequence of such an approach is that the concept of 'the pace of time' needs to be materialized.
    In other words, the space-time manifold translated to a space-local density manifold.
    And in a hypothetical area where this visible matter is not present (such as the early universe), this density takes on a homogenous configuration.From this configuration , visible matter is formed.

    I am studying a materialized interpretation of the Schrodinger shapes,in 3D on my pc, to hypothesize on how this homogenous configuration of 'particles' (Oriti (*) refers to it as 'tiny vortices') leads to contractions (pressure induced ?) into the different orbital shapes of the atoms.
    A first interesting thing i observed when turning this model around in the 3D-program, is that the approach-angles fit very well, for me encouraging, although perhaps a rediculous waste of time in the oppinion of others...
    To me these Schrodinger shapes are deformed vortices with gravitational characteristics, previously the homogenously distributed 'particles' in the universe i referred to.
    This deformation (originally spherical or oblate and independent) leads to the unpredictability of the exact location of the electrons.
    ('Gravitational' here used as a unifying therm, because i my hypothesis the electromagnetic forces use the same field in a different way).

    Anyway, that is my unifying angle.



    * :
    http://www.mpg.de/7513900/quantum-gravitation-Big-Bang
    Last edited by Noa Drake; May 29th, 2014 at 07:43 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    An atmosphere is created where it is most favourable to think and express the same thing as everybody else, for instance on the subject of gravity. Where are students in theoretical physics encouraged to think independently ? And later on in their career, where are they allowed to deviate from the mainstream without getting their heads cut off ? Where is the think tank were mistakes are allowed and partial ideas stored for later use ? Where is this positive dynamic ?
    You complain when people point out the obviously "cranky" statements that you make. But you are quite happy to make these unsupported and untrue generalizations about the science community.

    Science advances by people repeatedly trying to find flaws and new ways of testing existing theories. The idea that scientists learn their subject by rote and then just have to repeat the same experiments and get the same result is ludicrous. The PhD examination process, for example, is intended to test two things: that the candidate has a solid grasp of theory and that they are able to come up with original ideas (and test them).

    The theories you object to so much were, in their time, radical examples of people thinking independently and deviating from the mainstream. These theories are successful because they work (this is what makes them so hard to replace - it requires no help from your imagined Science Thought Police).
    PhDemon likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    But i have rarely seen a professional paper that includes interpreting, breaking down, altering or completing the pilar of the spacetime manifold.

    That is only a very very recent and scarce phenomenon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    So i hypothesize that those worldlines refer to something real
    World-lines are just what we see as particles, and vice versa ( sans quantum effects, of course ).

    Otherwise no movement of the visible matter would take place.
    You are right, there is no movement at all in GR - 4-dimensional space-time and everything in it are modelled as completely static. Space-time is all events at all times. That is kind of the point. The illusion of movement comes about because as humans we see only a hyperslice of space at any given instant, much like a rapid succession of static frames in a movie gives the illusion of movement. The thing with this is that GR does not and cannot explain why we see only a hyperslice at each moment in time, and why the "movie" runs only forward, i.e. towards the future; it simply models everything at all times, in a classical manner. To explain the progression of time as we see it in our everday experience, we need other areas in physics as well, such as thermodynamics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 27
    Last Post: April 5th, 2014, 12:27 AM
  2. Improving the Online Data Repository
    By Alessandro_James in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 15th, 2013, 07:36 AM
  3. Referenceframe Hafele keating experiment
    By Ghrasp in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 28th, 2010, 03:33 PM
  4. Manned Flights to Mars - When?
    By John Galt in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 14th, 2009, 12:23 PM
  5. Please hlep me in (Data preparation for data mining )
    By nadia in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2008, 02:56 PM
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
  •