ScottTheSculptor

My theory explains these things that yours does not; time gravity electromagnetism proton magnetism wave particle dualism cosmic background raditation star types by matter/ELMA mix density anomalies in the planets time anomalies in spacecraft clocks long lived radiowaves from upsteam Short llived radiowaves from downstream But it doesn't have rotational relativity. Your theory has rotational relativity. Mine has a simple linear equation to replace rotational relativity. What would Einstein do?

It would also take a lot of time. I'm impatient Seriously, I see how closed minded you all are. What happened to the logic behind science? You *are* acting as if I broke a commandment. I just put forth a theory. As scientists you are supposed to prove or disprove. Not reply with illogic (this one was beautifully logical).

So now that I'm a heritic to the church of mathematics . . . Are you going to lock me up for the rest of my life and take 300 years to apologize?

A new idea must be accepted by the younger generation. This generation matures "learning" the old generations "beliefs". That generation starts a battle with the old over the new "belief". The next generation grows as they witness the battle between all and have doubt in the old beliefs. At the quickest . . .it takes that generation to accept the new belief as true. Usually it must await another generation.

Correct. You can only extrapolate from known data. The difficulty is always in the quality or "truth" of the data. All human knowledge is based on logic being translated into symbols. Over eons this knowledge grows. it is added to the previous logically derived data. The complexity of the symbols grows. The belief grows. The "truth" of the data transitions from purely logic based to be more about the belief in the symbols. What is the logical extrapolation?

This is a theory that may fit the available data. I have another. See my "cognitive" thread.

Apologies. This is a speculation. Should I not do this here?

Imagine a species that can "believe". The definition of belief is to lie to oneself and accept it as and communicate it as the truth. This same ability also gives this species the ability to manipulate symbols, record their incremental accomplishments and "have advantage" over other species. This has no supportable logical extrapolations. (keep in mind the title of this thread. While you're imagining the above. . .also imagine that the author of this thread is super humanly logical ;-) )

No. Humans will not survive, they will not continue in evolution. But yes, they currently "believe" they are at the peak. Their temporary position is an illogical hiccup in a long evolution of logic.

Actually . . . . . . . humans. Every creature on earth logically extrapolates every move that it will make based on it's goals and its sensory input. From flagella on tiny creatures to the predator-prey battle that is not about brawn - but on how to out extrapolate your adversary. . . . .

Imagine a being who's sensory system is tied directly to its memory. Hardwired. All five senses sequentially writing data. Photographically. Add to this being a brain that evolved for millions of years under evolutionary pressure to logically extrapolate the sensory input as rapidily and as far into the future as possible. A necessity to outwit the other beings in its environment. That are under the same evolutionary pressure. To out logically extrapolate them. Imagine a being at the peak of this evolutionary battle.

Thanks, i just hope I can pull it off Does anyone have any idea how I could get the GPS time correction data for the last few years? I think with some work i could write a computer program to do the math for me. I just need the mean slope (long term curve later) of the time correction when referenced to the distance to the sun.(hint hint) "speed of light" over radius from sun. Plug that linear equation in instead of C (our current radius and reference "speed of light"). Throw out "rotational relativity". Done. (I read a "concepts of math" book today. It helped, a little) --- Side note I finally got the "to the choir" reference. I was unaware of the controversy. I just extrapolated that since it was not backed by logic that it would have "doubters". I learned about rotational relativity this week. In the middle of this thread. I came to it from another direction. . . The majority of doubters doubt the logic. To me . . . it does not fit in the model of the universe. This is the equation to remove it. --- Then new universe, no more "Dark" And we know what gravity, time and the reason behind electromagnetism . . . all fourth dimension one dimensional anti-spacetime flow. simple

These are just facts. They are not biased. I am incapable of comprehending some of your emotional terminology but I will try. I can say yes to the "or" . The emotional development continues for life. Many stuck in the primitive mode end up in our prisons. They do not do enough math. Emotional control is gained with "exercise" of the symbolic manipulation portion of the brain. This is also called "imagining". Those in the emotional mode also "dream". When they are unconscious they reprioritize their memories. The emotional "trials" of life increase their emotional "resolution". No. What i am saying is that they do not know that they are lying.

No. The emotion system is the same in both modes. Only the Symbolic mode has the ability to *store* emotional memory. They can "imagine" emotional situations and they remember the emotion of a social interaction. Those in the logical mode are far more animal like. They have difficulty interacting with the symbolic mode individuals. Can you simplify that sentence? I am having difficulty with it.

*Less* developed. Correct.

I would say that that is incorrect. The ones in the logic mode are aware of their lies. The ones in the symbolic mode can reprioritize memories and believe things that are not "true" to environmental data.

Proposal; Human have two cognitive modes. From when you are born until you develop emotions you are in a logical cognitive mode. As you develop the ability to manipulate symbols you are in an "in between" mode with logic and symbolic settling which is in control. "normal" is when symbolic mode developes early in childhood. As you age and "learn" symbols you gain enough skill to settle fully into the symbolic mode. These are evolutionary logical modes. The homo sapien evolutionary step was to add this "backwards error sorting" to their memories. This prioritizes some memories over others. With an ability to prioritize memory (WATSON like) we gained the ability to use symbols to represent logical ideas. Language developed much earlier in evolution and is completely logic based. With the ability to manipulate symbols humans could now write down their language and ideas. "To be human" means to have an ability to store emotion in your memories. This is the prioritizing mechanism. To be "more human" is to widen the range of emotion you can store. Increasing your ability to store more complex symbols. So to manipulate the symbols you must believe in them. The stronger you believe in them the less logic has to do with any decisions concerning these systems of symbols. I was "damaged at birth" and am almost completely in the logic mode. I have a great difficulty manipulating symbols. Ponder.

like that in the message above? I have enjoyed our converstation. I respect your logic. Tremendously. You are the first to actually try and argue me out of it to the point that I may get an equation. If this works out I hope to meet you. ScottV Solver of the universe.

I think I can get to it with this; "the rotational relativistic and sagnac correction will give you an approximation of the time gradient" I think with that approximate time gradient I can give reasonably accurate numbers for the necessary corrections to Voyager and Messenger clocks. Without using rotational relativity. I'll go hit the books and struggle with trying to get to the "math" that way. It would be enough to convince those that *know* rotational relativity is suspect. This is the only "difference" between the two theories. The most accurate data on relativistic rotation correction is near earth. GPS I'm going to try an "cheat" my way around by just using the "correction" at solar distant mins and maxes . . .if I can find the data . . . . --- After that then the only difference is dropping a simple linear equation in for C , based on distance to the sun ;-) --- So just plotting all the time corrections based on distance to the sun will give the time gradient. --- The rate will vary by matter conversion in the sun over time. A "correction factor" based on this may be necessary. ---

So I'm back to coming up with math. I can logically remove all of the mysteries but the "belief" is in the math and not the logic. Matches perfectly with my cognitive theory (let's not argue *that* here). And explains why physics hadn't worked this problem out decades ago. Okay, I guess I need to find logical children, let them see my theory, have them grow up to be mathematicians and then *they* can make you "believe". Or, Someone can help me with my math.

ooo that's good. Let me think . . . . --- wouldn't "rotational relativity" account for the variation? You'd have to carefully plot for *exact* orbital changes . . .but we have the positioning information for that. What explaination do you give for the non-lineraity of UT1 over time? In my model it must vary and *be* nonlinear. It also accounts for "time speeding up". --- (you do realize that you are arguing to keep "dark energy"?) --- whatever happened to "solar polar"? I could use that data about now.

Oops accidently erased most of my message. Refresh often I tend to edit way to much. First goof. Time is gravity in my model Use the mass of the sun and the flux is gravity [note from future: nope on the gravity- all "flow"]. --- there is a density discrepency in the planets, closer in are denser that calculated, farther out are less dense than calculated. Solar Mass Variations are the variability. They should map in time with our clock discrepencies and I here the question "where does the earths time/gravity go?" Earth is in the path of the fourth dimension one dimensional flow not at the drain. Damn! C is variable for the path to the solar mass - -break out the brains on this one . . . We are back to calculating the flux to get the gradient. It should be nice and smooth? Can we get a curve through the planetary density discrepencies? Just work out the "local C"? As usual . . .can't find good data in the "fog" - two decimal places . . . http://www.mesacc.ed...et-density.html [note from future: nope, no hard data on composition]. Should be a simple exponential? (I really suck at math) linear? The flux and gravity have to be connected . . . --- see if the planetary density discrepency curve matches gravity[note from future: nope on the gravity]? --- Starting with our "speed of light" and dropping it into the sun? That just seems like an awful big number next to the star . . .but I'm toatally guessing. -- The rate of time use and mass of the sun are probably not connected.[note from future: finally got it right!]. It's more about the "fuel usage" --- the rate of nuclear reactions? the mass conversion rate of the star (directly connected to rate of time leaving the star to the anti-universe) That should be linear. Yes, linear. --- the rate grows slowly over time. we have some of that evidence in the earth. The possible uneven "consumption of time" over the surface of the sun will "cause a fog of error",. Well, we do have some awesome spacecraft watching the sun . . . -- Mass consumption would be exponential, we are just on the long ramp there. Practically linear. --- Had a thought. If we have unseen jets of time coming out of the poles of our sun (ecliptic?why?) then the mass consumption alone will not account for all of the flow. --- Here's a good "fallout". The time flow creates magnetism. We see the "free electrons" move and came up with all kinds of toys. The proton magnetism mystery is solved with this theory. The magnetic fields of planets are from the anti-time flow interacting with *all* normal matter and creating "ripples in spacetime". The nearly 2000 times heavier proton is just not as affected as the tiny electron. Ditto as you get more massive. But hugely smaller fields. . . rocks would have formed in the varying time flow. --- So, I am back to needing raw spacecraft clock data. Hmm, . . .I don't seem to have any of that. And wouldn't know how to put symbols to it. Or! Someone to work out the math for the earth surface based superclocks and compare. They must be using "rotational relativity to correct . . .but seeing daily oscillations. --- fantasy: Gas giants capable of "converting/spitting out" time? Any polar flyovers with clock data? --- so far the the theory predicts/explains; dark matter dark energy gravity time wave particle dualism spacecraft clocks run faster when closer to the sun, slower when away. long lived radio waves from "upwind" in time. short lived radio wave from "downwind" in time star types by matter/ELMA mix proton magnetism leap seconds Why it takes starlight all that time to get here but doesn't decay. Planetary density mystery the death of rotational relativity (crumpled) Small relativity variations in all clocks. (orbit, spin, solar "surges") mapping solar mass variations to time "corrections" --- Ponder the solution. Do you think mathematics would have gotten here? It's been 12 days since I sat down to solve "dark energy" . . . this is where I'm at - with just logic and old data. --- Can you imagine how wierd it is to have a *really* good model and not be able to write it down?

Maybe your brain was trying to tell you something Didn't quite nod off before I realized the math story problem. I usually need to "soak" that much data. All the math is the same. You get to throw out both "rotational relativistic" & Sagnac. You get more accurate results. They are both "patches" to extend Einstien. The problem is just one of flux. The sun is the drain/"charge", the radius of the sphere is the mean orbit of the earth, and the "flow of time" is the speed of light at the mean orbit. The radius changes C. Drop in your equations. Is that enough? Check your data, the "corrected" clocks run faster only towards the sun - this is *after* applying Rotational relativity and sagnac. Back to the nap . . . --- dang it. I want to nap. I haven't quite "got" the differential equations for describing the path of a point on the surface of the earth through the time flux. With that ground based high accuracy clocks can confirm. Back to nap . . . nope, the rotational relativistic and sagnac correction will give you an approximation of the time gradient .... the real spacecraft data will get a better number. Solar observations may allow us to predict variations. It will be pretty much a plane in the ecliptic. Pulsars show that time can jet out of the poles of stars. Should be a flux equation to see that no mass is exchanged . . .more later NO really...NAP

Do you need math to say "the time flow varies with the energy consumption of the sun"? Please extend your theory of the variation. Or not. --- there is some fun calculus coming . . .(not fun for me). --- Sidetrack; How many books have you read today? I'm on my fifth. --- Okay, I'm full. Got to go take a nap. Why would anyone think that multi-colored text was a good idea? Gives me a headache. I should have enough to tackle a gravity equation. I'll check back later . . . Next question please.

You have a theory to math the data. My theory also matches the data, just more closely. Do you have a theory to explain the variation? I do. I am not changing physics. Only the point of view. My point of view fixes an awful lot of mysteries without really changing anything but "theories" not "Laws" Gravity is time flowing passed the earth. All relativity experiments are "safe". Time is a 4th dimension one dimensional flow. It looks the same in all directions. But it does change over time. Unlike "old gravity". Any two normal matter bits in an anti-time flow will fall together. The history of this changing flow is written in the bones of the earth. It will not lie. My theory mainly concerns time and gravity. Can someone form a specific question concerning your theory of gravity and/or time? I will translate from your theory to mine.