Tim88
Senior Members
Content count
447 
Joined

Last visited

Days Won
1
Tim88 last won the day on November 13 2016
Tim88 had the most liked content!
Community Reputation
30 GoodAbout Tim88

Rank
Molecule
Profile Information

Favorite Area of Science
physics
Recent Profile Visitors

No, not those; that's not what is meant with "the predecessors". The comparison is with the simplified calculations for time periods of 100'000 yrs and more, the socalled Milankovitch calculations and variants thereof  http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm .

Apparently the approximate calculations that everyone used until now do not even include the nutation; in other words, those do not "lag" the measurements but simply don't reproduce them  and apparently they were wrong for their intended use as well. The correct and accurately calculated nutation is one of the verifications of the correctness of the new, exact calculations that are discussed in the paper. Regretfully, we cannot directly verify the calculations over 100'000s of years with measurements.

I now got a reply from Smulsky. He points out that in fact there is an additional, astronomical verification: the constant of nutation. That's an oscillation of 9.2'' with a period of 18.6 years  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_nutation#Nutation_of_the_Earth.27s_axis As described in Smulsky's fig.10, this observed phenomenon is exactly reproduced by his calculation model  Smulsky J.J. Fundamental Principles and Results of a New Astronomic Theory of Climate Change. He further comments in his email (with a slight correction of his Google Translate Russian>English), with added emphasis: It looks to me that there is no reason to doubt the new calculation results. Thus, the one year silence after his peer reviewed publication suggests to me that people are putting their heads in the sand, in an attempt to just ignore it.

Could relativity be incorrect
Tim88 replied to PrimalMinister's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
Probably you misunderstood him. He was comparing constant straight line acceleration with constant centripetal acceleration (= in a circle, or "rotational"): In contrast to rectilinear acceleration, there is no energy input.for the simple case of a body that is freely rotating at constant centripetal acceleration (constant rotation speed). 
Could relativity be incorrect
Tim88 replied to PrimalMinister's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
mistermack didn't say "rigid body"... anyway, that's an interesting assertion; please clarify! 
Any Anomalies in Bell's Inequality Data?
Tim88 replied to TakenItSeriously's topic in Quantum Theory
I now found it back: https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.2629 In a nutshell, the authors conclude that the experimental data by Weihs et al are not in agreement with the predictions of QM: "It is highly unlikely that quantum theory describes the data of the EPRB experiment that we have analyzed." As it's apparently only in ARXIV, it's definitely a discussion item  up to TakenItSeriously if he's interested! 
As I now understand it, the approximate and the accurate calculations are all accurate (agreeing with each other and with measurements) for the time of human history. Consequently, it is necessary to compare the calculated variations with the geological record. In the paper a comparison is made with the ice ages, as established with dating techniques.

Could relativity be incorrect
Tim88 replied to PrimalMinister's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
Indeed accelerating frames are for local use; that was already done in classical mechanics but GR extended it for all physical phenomena. There's another issue that none of us addressed but is coming back every time: there is no "moving faster than light eventually" involved. Accelerating objects as measured with a "stationary frame" (also called "coordinate acceleration") accelerate less and less fast as they reach high speed. That was even one of the first predictions of SR, about the fact that electrons cannot be accelerated to the speed of light. Note also the subtle difference with proper acceleration, which is the acceleration relative to instantly comoving reference frames.The fact that nothing can break the speed of light is true for someone who has a constant proper acceleration of 9.8 m/s2. 
Any Anomalies in Bell's Inequality Data?
Tim88 replied to TakenItSeriously's topic in Quantum Theory
Hi Mordred, thanks for the wealth of references. I doubt that Bayesian vs Gaussian statistics matters here, as I cited how Bell did not even pretend to give a rigorous proof of his starting equation. Nevertheless, since I have the statistics book of Jaynes [PS I'm well beyond chapter one lol] and still plan to work my way completely through it one day, your references are appreciated and maybe one day I'll contact you with questions about a certain chapter. Also, I agree that the "particle" approach is probably a dead end  just for the record, as we're drifting away from the topic (sorry TakenItSeriously!). More on topic, I recall that I read somewhere that the results of some well known Bell type measurements do not agree well with the predictions of QM, but that this fact was overlooked in the first article on those experiments (sometimes one only sees what one is looking for). I will try to find that back. 
Tim88 started following Any Anomalies in Bell's Inequality Data?

Any Anomalies in Bell's Inequality Data?
Tim88 replied to TakenItSeriously's topic in Quantum Theory
That's a good one! In fact there seems to be something of a mathematical "anomaly" here. That equation is according to Jaynes an unproven simplification of locality in Bell experiments. According to him, "fundamentally correct" would be (in his notation): P(ABabλ) = P(ABabλ) P(Babλ) Now, I'm not 100% sure that he was right, but I suppose that an expert like him would not make a mistake about such a fundamental issue. And as a matter of fact, even Bell admitted that his simple equation is not based on mathematical rigor but instead, it is based on plausible looking assumptions ("It seems reasonable to expect that"  Bertlmann's socks). As the result led to extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence is required. Reasonable seeming expectation does not suffice. 
Could relativity be incorrect
Tim88 replied to PrimalMinister's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
What does that obvious fact have to do with the issues that PrimalMinister and mistermack have with interpretations of relativity by certain writers? As I understand their issues, they are struggling with a mixup that happens at the source of information. The issue here, I think, is not that writers are unclear or confusing about their definitions. All too often even in textbooks metaphysics is sold as physics, sometimes even accompanied by misleading or false information. That causes the most confusion. Let's wait for their comments. 
Could relativity be incorrect
Tim88 replied to PrimalMinister's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
How about this: Einstein speculated in 1916 that "The general theory of relativity renders it likely that the electrical masses of an electron are held together by gravitational forces." (in Relativity: The Special and General theory, English translation of 1920).  https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_General_Theory/Part_I#cite_note14 Once more (sticking to the topic), it's all a matter of interpretation and definitions, quite independent of the mathematical theory. 
Could relativity be incorrect
Tim88 replied to PrimalMinister's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
Adding to that, it depends on one's definition of "force" if we call it a force or not. In fact, Einstein still called it a force in 1916 when he explained GR. Plays on words should not hinder our understanding! 
Hi bvr, that's a nice "light clock" gif!
t looks like a lot of work... maybe you had a trick or tool for that?

Thanks Tim88.
I didn't use a special tool, just Gimp and an online tool: http://gifmaker.org
It took me several hours and some patience, there are 84 frames.


What exactly do you understand with "absolute time", and why do you think that it has been shown not to exist? Negatives are generally hard to show! Note the subtle difference with the fact that time is not absolute. Maybe that is what you meant?