Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DanMP

  1. Post 201 ?!? Ok, I get it, you don't know the answer and want to drive me away from the simple question I posted (see #196). No problem, maybe someone else will answer. I'll wait for the answer and not engage in a meaningless dispute.
  2. What do you mean?!? It didn't. As I wrote above (3 times, or more), I need to know what result should be the target for my (or any) alternative (non-Lorentzian) theory for Fizeau experiment.
  3. It seems that you forgot our conversation on the matter Here: This is accurate when v/c « 1, and agrees with the formula based upon Fizeau's measurements, which satisfied the condition v/c « 1 It agrees but is not identical. Relax, the new theory is not intended to replace SR, which is good/sound, but to offer (& test) a new, specific, model/solution. SRT is too general, it not explains what is going on there. So, back to my question, what is the target for a new/alternative theory, what Fizeau found or exactly the SR result (the one with 1+v/cn below)?
  4. Nothing much I just need to see that you can agree with something I wrote. How about this:
  5. A - In Newton's theory, gravity is a force, while general theory of relativity describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy, so they are not really "in agreement; compatible" ... B - In Fizeau experiment the result derived from the existing theory (SR) is not identical with what Fizeau found, so a new theory must be consistent with what Fizeau found, the reality, not identical with SR result (the one with 1+v/cn below). Do you agree?! So, to say "A new theory must be consistent with existing theory" is not OK.
  6. Consider 2 clocks, one stationary and the other moving away. Just before parting, they display the same hour: 00:00. After departure, the clock moving away will show 00:01, then 00:02 and so on, slower than the stationary one, but still going towards future. So it's not "travelling into the past", it's just going towards future at different pace. In fact it's "travelling into the future", for the parting clock/person, because if they get back, they will find people at home passed away or older (twin paradox). Sorry if this was posted before. I didn't read all the posts.
  7. What gravitons? Are gravitons accepted by mainstream science?! I agree
  8. Yes, you are right. Another way is to predict, using the new model, something that existing theories can't/didn't predict, and then test it.
  9. Easier, but possibly wrong. SR offers for Fizeau experiment a good prediction, but a new theory prediction must be compared with the experimental result, NOT with SR prediction.
  10. Wrong! The new theory must be consistent with reality, period. It may have a completely different approach/model and give the same or better results/predictions for all the tested results of the previous theory. Also, it is desirable for it to make new predictions, that can be tested.
  11. This is very close to what I feel. I'm not interested in copyright protection. I want my ideas to be displayed, scientifically debated and, if considered worthy, disseminated and tested. The "timestamp" may be useful for getting some recognition, possibly just among friends and colleagues.
  12. I think I'm not that guy, and definitely not the one not being able to master the Quote button ... If you ask for rigor, please practice it yourself! Also I suggest to refrain from using words like crap and WTF. We are in a science forum. You tend to repeat over and over again your lines about crackpottery, and to bully (see #67) people you don't know, over things they didn't do. I suggest you to wait until I post my theories (& you properly read them), before making statements about them/me and posting ramblings about how moronic I act. Offering a diagnostic before properly examining something is 100% unscientific. It seems that you are not that sharp as I hoped (see #66) ... or maybe just full of prejudice ... About the forum "timestamp" and the protection of my work, I think I was correct. Maybe it is not the best place and the best protection, but it is enough for me.
  13. Why? Maybe you didn't understand my point. I checked on the blog and if, say, I post something, I can edit everything a year after and the "timestamp" remains from the initial post. Here, anyone can see if the first (or any) post was edited and also the subsequent citations, so this forum is a good proof of the time when the idea was posted. What do you find wrong or offensive?
  14. You will see, after reading my work (something the editor didn't: the rejection came 11 minutes after Submission Confirmation ...) that citations are not really needed, because all I mentioned was well-known and/or available on Wikipedia. Anyway, the lack of citations was not the only problem: I considered (and even created) a blog (still empty) and even viXra, but I prefer this forum, because here I am allowed to publish, I get a "timestamp" (a proof that I was the first to publish the idea), I can find people with sharp minds (like Strange), capable & willing to dissect a new theory, I can defend it with logical arguments (if I have the time & it remains open ...) and it is available to many people. As I said, even if I'm wrong (overall) some ideas may be good/useful for future scientists/theories.
  15. I did have a bad experience. I sent my work in 3 places. The first was "arxiv", replying (correctly) that my "submission was in need of significant review and revision before it would be considered publishable by a conventional journal [...] Please submit instead to a conventional journal to receive the requisite feedback". After a revision I sent it to "Annalen der Physik" and the Editor-in-Chief replied "The topic is undoubtedly relevant. However, this does not mean that any work from an author without research background and with no publication record in this field can be considered by our highly selective and high-profile journal. Moreover, the manuscript contains no references, i.e. does not show any relation to current intense international research activities [...] Please consider, after improvement of your work, a different journal in the area of astrophysics or cosmology. I hope for your understanding". The last was "Physics of the Dark Universe" and the answer was: "I regret to inform you that your manuscript has been considered [correctly, again] beyond the scope of the journal. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work". This was in 2015. After that, I tried to find help in improving the article, at my university, and the majority of my colleagues responded that they didn't have enough time and/or the expertise in the field. Only 2 of them actually read the article and sent me comments, but both of them made a mistake regarding the first part, comparing my result with the one obtained using Lorentz transformations, instead of comparing both results with the experimental result ... In the second part they considered that more math is needed but they didn't offer to help and by myself I can't do it. The main problem is that the level of presentation is much too low compared with the importance of the subject. So, here I am, ready to divide the article in 2, rewrite some parts, add or correct here and there, and post them in the forum, probably in "Speculations", because there is not a "Personal theories" sub-forum and this is absolutely no mainstream, although it is scientific, in agreement with what we know from experiments and offering many testable predictions. Back to the main subject, I think that speculations are important, even when imperfect, because they may contain some good ideas, ideas that may lead to future mainstream theories. When so much part of the universe is considered "dark", we should expect big changes in physics ... About "Scientific Speculations" + "Wild Speculations", and So, there is rigor in "Speculations", but not enough, according to Strange. Considering that, I change my proposition to: "Personal theories" (more rigorous) + "Speculations" (less rigorous) + "Trash" (garbage), in order to separate the really scientific speculations from "all the crap that currently gets posted" ...
  16. I agree. The dictionary must be used for a proper answer to OP question. According to my understanding of the dictionary, your pseudo-speculation is a (very) poor speculation and your real speculation is a good one, or even a new theory. I think that "Speculations" sub-forum should be divided in "Scientific speculations" (or "New theories") and "Wild speculations", and the theories posted in the first one, but without experimental evidence, falsifiable predictions and/or logic, to be moved/demoted to "Wild speculations", or even "Trash", if there are disagreements with experimental evidences. The existing "Speculations" sub-forum is suffocated by non-scientific speculations, so I'm reluctant to post my theories there, because my theories are in agrement with experimental evidences, offer mathematics and can be backed up by a "ton" of evidence (falsifiable predictions). Would you post a new & important theory there? (And no, a scientific journal is not a solution, because the editors are very reluctant to accept really new solutions to very important problems from unknown scientists.)
  17. Sorry, I really can't understand your solution. What are [latex]A[R],B[R][/latex]? What is R? Where is x, with a single body replacing the two? For the last time: if you think you can calculate the distance in question, please do. I can't and I give up.
  18. Sorry, but I didn't find the definitions of terms and coefficients there, nor the equation you posted ... Anyway, the math I saw there is too much for me, so clearly I can't calculate the distance in question ... Moreover, after, say, I manage to do it, you will say that it's not good, because it didn't include the spin, the Moon, the orbital speed around the center of our galaxy and so on ... If you or someone else can understand and do the math you proposed, be my guest. I give up.
  19. If you can calculate the "real" x, please do, because I can't.
  20. Well, I don't know what to do. You expect major differences? Can you calculate it? Anyone else?
  21. This is good, because I expected a smaller x Can you calculate the correct value?
  22. True, but in your equation (#27), the angular speed, [math]\omega[/math], seemed to be of a test clock orbiting the Earth, which is not the case. Anyway, I finally got the time to do & now to write the math: Your (corrected) equation is: [latex]\frac{f®}{f(x)}=\sqrt{\frac{1+2\Phi(x)/c^2-((d-x) \omega/c)^2}{1+2\Phi®/c^2-((d-R) \omega/c)^2}}[/latex] where: - d is the distance between the Sun and the Earth - x is the distance between the center of the Earth and the test clock on the Earth-Sun line - [latex]\omega[/latex] is the angular speed of the Earth around the Sun - R is the Earth radius so [latex]f(x)=f®\sqrt{\frac{1+2\Phi®/c^2-((d-R) \omega/c)^2}{1+2\Phi(x)/c^2-((d-x) \omega/c)^2}}[/latex] and we need to find the point where [latex]f'(x)=0[/latex] This leads to: [latex]\frac {2\Phi'(x)}{c^2}+\frac {2(d-x)\omega^2}{c^2}=0[/latex] (1) As in #24: [math]\Phi(x)=-\frac{GM}{d-x}-\frac {Gm}x[/math] and [math]\Phi'(x)=-\frac{GM}{(d-x)^2}+\frac {Gm}{x^2}[/math] So (1) become: [math]-\frac{GM}{(d-x)^2}+\frac {Gm}{x^2}+(d-x)\omega^2=0[/math] or [math]\frac{GM}{(d-x)^2}=\frac {Gm}{x^2}+(d-x)\omega^2[/math] Meaning that the point where a test clock going from the Earth's surface towards the Sun would switch from increasing its tick rate to decrease it again is exactly where the gravitational pull of the Sun on the clock is cancelled by the gravitational pull of the Earth and the centrifugal force (in the above equation the mass of the clock is 1 kg). This happens at x=1482493941.5 m (approx. 1,5 million km), probably on the Hill sphere, as I kind of suggested in #24. Interesting. This can and should be tested using 2 atomic clocks linked with fibre optic cable, the first pulling the other with a few km long cable, spiraling upwards from the Earth.
  23. Then the equation should be: [latex]\frac{f®}{f(x)}=\sqrt{\frac{1+2\Phi(x)/c^2-((d-x) \omega/c)^2}{1+2\Phi®/c^2-((d-R) \omega/c)^2}}[/latex] where: - d is the distance between the Sun and the Earth - x is the distance between the center of the Earth and the test clock on the Earth-Sun line - [latex]\omega[/latex] is the angular speed of the Earth around the Sun
  24. Yes, they do cancel. Anyway, thank you very much for your replies.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.