ScottTheSculptor

An equation built from empirical data will always be discarded for one built from first principles if they are equally accurate.

 

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?

 

 

 

 

"A man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is persecuted; he must also be right."

Stephen Jay Gould - Ever Since Darwin

 

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.

 

But what is the difference between belief, and the ability to logically extrapolate the future (or "predict", as physics allows us to do), when the future has an inherent uncertainty?

 

It seems to me advantageous to be able to predict a specific future and act on it, despite the the uncertainty of that future. I suppose in other words, taking chances can be advantageous. Thus beliefs should have a measure of logic to them -- some beliefs are more logical than others but belief and logic are not mutually exclusive.

 

I suppose one way to make beliefs more logical it to incorporate the uncertainty into them, so that we can predict things but act according to an understanding that things may turn out differently. Then a belief is more of a guess than a lie.

 

 

 

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?

Logic is not natural to humans. Our brains work by analogy.

 

This is a theory that may fit the available data.

 

I have another.

See my "cognitive" thread.

Please put the word "believe" or "imagine" every time you want us to imagine stuff.

 

It's not too often on this forum we're asked to believe or to imagine. It is easy to forget.

 

Apologies. This is a speculation.

Should I not do this here?

We're not at the peak of evolution. We're just at the top of the food chain, and the masters (although quite careless) of our planet. That's something different though.

 

 

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 ;-) )

Humans are not the peak of an evolutionary process, but rather part of a continuum of evolution. Evolution has been ongoing for billions of years and humans have only been around for maybe a few hundred thousand. Given another few billion years of evolution, the results will be new species, not just "more-advanced humans".

 

Unless you mean, "peak up until now", in which case having our imagination restricted to only the past suggests we might not be beings who are able to extrapolate as far into the future as possible.

 

 

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.

So, Vulcans?

 

 

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

This argument sound biased in favor of conformism. People tend to conform to social norms due to emotional experiences of relative shunning for exhibiting relative independence. Expressions of social-cultural independence are built on solid emotional foundations that people are unconditionally loved by family members, "God," etc. I suppose that also relies on emotional memory but in that case emotional memory liberates more independent cognition. Is it possible I'm misunderstanding you as referring to logic at the level of independent reason whereas you are talking about more base forms of practical/reflexive logic, such as direct responses to emotions that don't involve much reflection and decision-making? Or are you saying that animals and "lower humans" are capable of acting in an emotion-less, calculated logical way and that felt-emotions only surface when a certain level of development has been reached?

 

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".

 

 

Basically I was asking you if what you meant was that a well-developed person could be lying and expect others to regard their lies as if they were sincerely expressed. That seem juvenile, imo, though many adults behave in such a deceitful way in search of power.

 

No. What i am saying is that they do not know that they are lying.

Doesn't that contradict what you said before?

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

So you might not believe what you're saying but you could still be saying it out of choice, and you would expect people to respect your words as being meant sincerely, in good faith?

 

Can you simplify that sentence? I am having difficulty with it.

So you would say that a person who loses control in a fit of emotion and injures someone else is more developed than someone who can rationalize their emotion and act in a reasonable manner despite their feelings?

 

*Less* developed.

 

So you're saying humans develop from having a sense of distinction between truth and lies to having the ability to re-prioritize memories to render anything they want as truth as they please?

 

 

Correct.

What would you say about the belief that animals are completely ruled by emotions and humans use reason and free will to transcend being completely driven by emotion?

 

I would say that that is incorrect.

 

 

 

Interesting. So what are people doing when they're lying, scamming, and otherwise being insincere? Are you saying they must believe in what they're saying at some level?

 

 

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.

 

 

 

True, preaching to the choir does have a high success rate. The tough crowd is comprised of people who want actual scientific evidence.

 

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.

UT1 variations aren't linear, and are due to rotational changes, i.e. the earth is a poor clock. Atomic time doesn't reflect these variations.

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.

Yes. What is the direction of the variation? Magnitude? Is it linear?

 

What's the connection between energy consumption of the sun and time at some remote point? You said it depends on the position of the earth in its orbit, which might imply that it depends on the flux from the sun, not the energy consumption of the sun.

 

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?

Isn't this the opposite of SR, GR, and experimental observations involving spacecraft?

 

Wouldn't spacecraft clocks appear to us to tick slower due to increased gravitational field nearer the sun?

Moreover, near the sun the craft would move with higher relative speed, and thus be subject to greater time dilation than when farther away?

 

I've got this backward myself a million billion times, and it's always due to having an intuitive but only partial grasp on the ideas of relativity while misunderstanding the complicated details.

 

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

Fine. Present the details that show this. (I don't see how you will, given that you have said you don't have/can't do the math.)

 

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 to explain specifically what is wrong with the data. "Does not match exactly" is way too vague.

Leap second insertions are scheduled on Dec 31 or Jun 30 but that's not when the discrepancy occurs. The discrepancy is identified ahead of time, and warning is given to give people a chance to prepare. According to your conjecture, why are leap seconds inserted only occasionally?

 

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.