Humblemun

 

Well then, at least the last guy showed us some "maths" and explanations. Why don't you try to flesh out further of your theory?

Though you want to check if it approximates to Newtonian gravity (for simplicity) first because it was right for some approximation.

I've made a qualitative prediction for the Juno flyby anomaly expected on Oct 9th 2013. That's not long to wait.

Here's a recent article which is potentially on the same lines as my own ideas: MOND predicts dwarf galaxy feature prior to observations - Also indicates gravity fields vary where dark matter presumes uniformity

"At stake now is whether the universe is predominantly made of an invisible substance that persistently eludes detection in the laboratory, or whether we are obliged to modify one of our most fundamental theories, the law of gravity," McGaugh continued.

Yes, this is the way forward imv.

ok

LOL I think it was in the trash can. Something about TOE with rotational concepts and force particles. You'd better by reviewing current physics in depth then criticizing it.

I doubt whether it was the same as my own worldview. More likely your rash judgement of an apparent similarity was enough for the comment "with exactly the same mechanism as yours".

Explain how bribery is a science problem and how it was solved without using math.

I've probably said too much on the matter already.

Relativity is not dependent on any particular model of the atom or nucleus. QED does a pretty spiffy job modeling the atom, though.

The testing of relativity given in the OP relies on atomic clocks which rely on atomic theory, which is the modelling of the atom in isolation.

 

There's always a revision of fluid dynamics(i.e. air currents) at your mouse tip, without reverting to another failed concept (that I have met in another locked post before, with exactly the same mechanism as yours)

I don't think it was me. Can you direct me to it please?

 

And I want a pony. Not going to happen. What we do have, in the context of this discussion, is relativity. Which is quite successful.

It might happen if science moves on in a new and unexpected direction.

 

But your earlier link mentions meshes and algorithms. Surely you agree these are mathematical in nature. That means this is a subset of mathematical modeling.

That was the Wikipedia engineering example of the discipline. My Professor of Simulation Modelling used to solve problems of big multi-national companies. One story involved the problem a company was having with oil tankers worldwide, trying to make them as profitable as possible. Eventually after much research and modelling the problem was found to be the harbour masters taking "back handers" for a quicker entry into port.

There's certain problems which are better suited to simulation modelling and some better suited to mathematical modelling.

I prefer the acetone production hypothesis by Brian J Ford Professor's breakthrough on human combustion theory but with the trigger being an intermittent force from exotic fluid matter at the Earth's core.

There was an interesting Daily Mail article on the subject just recently Can a baby just burst into flames? This child is claimed to have spontaneously combusted FOUR times. Crazy? A new theory offers a tantalising explanation.

Like many mothers, Rajeshwari Karnan was delighted when she gave birth to a son. The 23-year-old farm labourer and her husband, Karnan Perumal, 26, already had a two-year-old daughter, but like many in the state of Tamil Nadu, they considered a boy a particular blessing.

So when Rahul arrived in May, they were especially delighted.

However, just over a week later, their joy turned to misery.

One afternoon, says Rajeshwari, she was washing her daughter when she suddenly heard Rahul screaming from inside the hut. She ran towards him, but before she could get there, a neighbour shouted to her the words she will never forget: ‘Your baby is on fire!’

‘There was a flame on his belly and his right knee,’ Rajeshwari told the New York Times last week, ‘and my husband rushed with a towel to put it off [sic]. I got very scared.’

The couple immediately took their son to hospital, but the doctors were mystified.

Later, the parents returned home, hoping this bizarre and disturbing occurrence would not repeat itself.

Shouldn't you two be on the bickering site?

 

Exotic matter of what properties?

Fluid exotic matter which intermittently emits force particles which interact with fluids to create an anomaly with an acceleration towards the surface with a lateral deviation to the left.

It's my solution for the 777 crash at San Franscisco Airport just recently: Autothrottle Function Probed in Asiana 777 Crash

The instructor pilot who occupied the cockpit’s right seat at the time of the crash reported that he assumed the autothrottles were maintaining 137 knots when, at 500 feet, he saw three red precision approach path indicator (PAPI) lights and one white light, indicating a low approach. At that time, he told the pilot flying—a 9,700-hour captain in training who had accumulated roughly half of the needed initial operating experience in the 777—to “pull back.” As the airplane descended between 500 feet and 200 feet, they experienced a “lateral deviation” and continued to fly too low. By the time they reached 200 feet, the instructor pilot noticed four red PAPI lights, indicating a very low approach. [Two red lights and two white lights indicate a correct approach height.—Ed.] Finally recognizing that the autothrottles hadn’t maintained proper speed, the instructor pilot “established a go-around attitude,” and as he attempted to push the throttles forward, he realized that the pilot in the left seat had already done so. The airplane’s speed increased from 103 knots three seconds before impact to 106 knots at the time the tail section hit the sea wall. The airplane careened off the pavement, “ballooned” and spun nearly 360 degrees until it came to rest several hundred feet from the point of impact.

You do approximations because you don't lug a super computer with you all the time.

You might want to look up on how a plane is designed to ensure it's safety. The engineers don't make it by "feel" or simply Trial and Error, my dear chap. You don't feel that maths is important when you don't need high precision.

 

 

Wow, you're making approximations about myself. I've said elsewhere that I'm very respectful of the need for mathematics and that it is complementary to simulation modelling.

 

My dear, science is never sure, but striving to improve. QM is the current model.

That beside the point, what does this have to do with time?

Most people on here seem more than sure that Newton's and Einstein's continued works are the real deal. Newton assumed that the Earth is composed of entirely the same kind of matter found on the surface. I've deduced that fluid exotic matter exists around the central core. The foundations of the modern mainstream theory of gravity is way to simplistic for me to take seriously. "Time" is a factor within these potentially very flawed equations.

 

My dear, you have to learn to walk before you fly. That's why you need to learn basic sciences before you advance.

Also, if you are not aware, atomic physics do have a simulation model of the nucleus and electrons.

They certainly don't have one for the nucleus that I've seen which makes me think they have a full understanding of the inner most workings of structure. As my Professor of Simulation Modelling used to say, when you're 90% sure of something is when you are at your most dangerous.

Humblemum

 

 

 

Simulation is generally about process.

But underlying both simulation and other forms of modelling is the assumption that the model follows a sufficiently similar set of rules to that being modelled for the product of the processes to be put into correspondence in both systems.

 

In post#141 I posted a process that I maintain cannot be modelled by mathematical formulae alone.

 

I challenged the mathematicians here to offer such formulae if they disagreed.

 

I now challenge you to post a method of simulation for the process of mixing concrete to the desired consistency.

 

Funnily enough, I was a self-employed garden fencer after a being a Scientific Officer, so I used to mix concrete on a regular basis. I did it all by eye eventually of course. They'd be a multitude of reasons why I might want a particular mix to be runnier than another. It's from performing a task in the real world with real world ingredients many times over which gives a human being skill as a craftsman. Yes, I think I understand where you're coming from, mathematicians tend to forget that maths is just a model of reality. Reality isn't maths, but there's a surprising number of individuals who think so.

My dear, clocks measure time, not produce it. You might want to google "second" for the accurate definition of a second.

It's the mathematical concept of "time" that I uncomfortable with. In a simulation model of the creation of structure, I can imagine structures forming from an external energy within a void which eventually become spinning neutrons, protons and galaxies. I don't need complex mathematics, just a visual model. "Time" is just a perception within the minds of human beings who observe structures moving relative to one another. Until atomic physics has a simulation model of the nucleus and electrons, then I'm not happy with mathematical modelling of time. I want a TOE that a layman can understand.

In what way is a simulation model not a mathematical model?

My Professor of Simulation Modelling used to say that both were complementary. When he went for a contract, he could come out of the room and have a prototype working simulation model of the system described within 15 minutes and then show the potential clients. This factor would often give him the winning egde over the mathematical modellers. It suits people with very visual types of imagination, as opposed to natural mathematicians. I naturally prefer to imagine a mechanical system for understanding, whilst a mathematician doesn't, they can rely on the logic of the equations.

My professor said that the two methods were entirely different but would often come up with exactly the same answer/solution.

 

So the CAD produces a three dimensional model under the designers hand. The computer turning the design into underlaying Code one presumes. Then do you let it run within some boundaries , or using some initial conditions with incremental changes ?

 

I presume this is what generates these simulations of two Galaxies colliding ?

Yes, that's the general idea. I have a personal mind-model of the creation of structure. I've always wanted to simulate it, but it was beyond my capabilities. I'd be grateful of any positive feedback: Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die?. NB I actually think these two initial opposing fractal helix structures could create an overall force of attraction via Archimedes screw particle emissions and cause an implosion rather travelling around a hypersphere to create a subsequent collision.

Edit: This anaysis has led to my prediction of the forthcoming Juno flyby on Oct 9th 2013: an large positive additional acceleration with a signature lateral deviation to the left. (Caused by an excess of left-hand spinning Archimedes screw gravitons).

P.S. I just checked your profile. I studied Simulation Modelling at Brunel University at MSc level whilst employed as a Scientific Officer at DERA Farnborough. Professor Ray Paul was an originator of this discipline I believe. I didn't complete the course, but left enlightened enough to leave my job (I have mild Aspergers), and travel the world with a friend, gathering information to solve the whole shebang when in middle age. That time has now arrived (lol)

Essay Abstract

 

An analysis based on the imagery of the creation of structure from the starting point of a void. A visual representation of spinning threads of energy which emerge and then grow into ‘spinning threads of spinning threads’. Two opposing mirror matter structures conserving laws of conservation of energy and momentum is envisaged. These analog structural energy trees then break free and traverse a wraparound universe to collide on the opposite side of a hypersphere. The Big Bang irregularities are thought to be due to a slight non-spherical aspect of this hypersphere, meaning the two trees don’t meet 100% head-on. The high energy collision breaks the spinning threads into discrete digital components. Some of the resultant forms are of long-lasting donut helices which are our familiar protons and neutrons.

 

What exactly is the Driver of these " Simulation Modeling "

 

Mike

 

Ps thanks for your comments !

It's an understanding of the system you are trying to represent. This hapens within the human mind and is then entered as computer code. The computer then represents the dynamics of the system on a monitor screen.

Here's a Wikipedia view on it:

Simulation modeling follows a process much like this:

1. Use a 2D or 3D CAD tool to develop a virtual model, also known as a digital prototype, to represent a design.
2. Generate a 2D or 3D mesh for analysis calculations. Automatic algorithms can create finite element meshes, or users can create structured meshes to maintain control over element quality.
3. Define finite element analysis data (loads, constraints, or materials) based on analysis type (thermal, structural, or fluid). Apply boundary conditions to the model to represent how the part will be restrained during use.
4. Perform finite element analysis, review results, and make engineering judgments based on results.

If you look at a comparison of Replies numbers. Physics, Politics,Lounge, Speculations rank among the highest. If one puts Politics and lounge as the desire to relax, yarn and pontificate, then that leaves Physics and Speculation in the Big Numbers League. WHY ?

 

Surely this demonstrates

 

a) A desire to seek and know how our Universe Works.

 

B) A keen desire by many to SPECULATE what that knowledge could possibly be.

 

 

So why beat the living daylights out of each other for having a genuine Desire and offering only Possibles. ?

An excellent observation.

I mean this in the politest way possible. It is a fact of the world that, while people excel in their perspective areas, whether that be a science, a humanity, an understanding of street drug prices, fighting technique, fishing, tax avoidance - whatever, the underlying mechanism to allow for learning is critical thinking. Having said that, some people are more critical than others, from the sharpest man to the dullest bottom.

 

Many people, no matter where their own PERSONAL level of intelligence stands on the 'national average', find people with inferior intelligence frustrating to talk to. Their lack of mental ability seems to arouse an innate irritation in most people. It is this irritation that fuels the correction of grammer, the sneering of specialists, the frustration of trying to explain evolution to a creationist that simply will-not-listen!

 

I would like to question what people think this is due to, from an evolutionary prospective (or a broader psychological/biological prospective, if someone has one).

 

I'll start the ball rolling with a little A-level psychology:

The frustration-aggression hypothesis argues that aggression is fueled by a frustration. This can be extended to account for the aggression in the illiterate who cannot explain themselves with words, or the aggression of someone who tries and fails a task a thousand times. I would speculate that perhaps the negativity that someone feels towards somebody they deem to be intellectually inferior is due to a similar frustration - not due to the inability to express oneself, but from the listeners inability to comprehend (lending the same effect).

 

Take it away!

 

Disclaimer: This thread in no way emplies an elitism. A turnip that can turn left is annoyed when its turnip companions refuse to follow it. But it is, to all intents and purposes, still a turnip. This question applies anywhere on the varying levels of intelligence present in the human species.

 

Edited: I changed 'some people are better than others' to 'some people are more critical'. The original implication was that 'better' related to the previous sentence on critical thinking, but that was unclear, and sounded horrible.

Excellent thread. I particularly liked the phrase "A turnip that can turn left is annoyed when its turnip companions refuse to follow it", which I've never heard before. It reminded me of my qualitative prediction for Juno's flby anomaly on Oct 9th 2013: a lateral deviation to the left.

Thanks for sharing.

Recent comments by an Astronomy orientated Researcher Dr Paul J Abel (Patrick Moore Sky at Night Fame ) (see ajb blogg), has posed questions as to whether maths should be leading the resolution of the ( Quantum Gravity issue), which it is, in string theory and other maths orientated research., Yet ( he indicates ) what is really required is a New Einstein ! Observers, Thinkers , and Hypothesis, to lead the field and then the mathematicians can follow and tidy up the details. !

 

 

Post script. P.S.

 

. hypothesis : " a suggested explanation for a group of facts, accepted either as a basis for further verification or

. as likely to be true. [ Greek hupotithenai to propose, literally: to put under ]"

 

. hypothesize or hypothesise "to put forward an hypothesis "

 

.

. h .................. " a man/woman who puts forward an hypothesis is called an h................ ( not sure )

 

 

. hypothetical : " based on assumption rather than fact or reality "

 

.

The relatively new discipline of Simulation Modeling is also a better way forward than mathematical modeling imv. Only when we have a simulation model of the creation of structure itself, which then continues to produce a picture which closely resembles our view of the multltitude of galaxies, can we really begin to pat ourselves on the back. A simulation model of spiral galaxy rotation is beyond our capabilities at the moment.

While this rare event of massive sized water tanks rupturing occurs rarely, it is oftened accompanied by some loss of life and large property loss. I have put together some chemical based theories on how some of the evidently pressure detonations could be occurring. Those more familar with these large water tanks may be able to supply more insights (like what metal is employed, ventilation/pressure release valves, is the water stored pre or post aeration and/or chlorination,.etc). If a coherent list of possible causes can be produced, I will forward to OSHA, which apparently review these incidents, for considerations. As to why I am presenting on this forum is a net search reveals little insight and I can understand why a very respected scientist may feel reluctant to be associated with a topic on water tank pressure explosions.

 

First, some history of the events to ascertain some possible patterns. Here is a report of a large explosion from Fox News reported on April 07, 2011 "Two Killed From 300,000 Gallon Water Tank Explosion" (see http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/07/killed-300000-gallon-wa... ). To quote:

 

"Two men died Thursday when a 300,000 gallon water tank exploded in Florida, unleashing a flood and causing an adjacent building to collapse.

The victims were in the midst of repairing a pump that filled the tank inside an adjacent concrete block building. The force of the water from the explosion caused the building to collapse, MyFoxTampaBay.com reported."

 

Here is another incident in Tomball, Texas where a worker was killed after a water storage tank exploded..

Hi ajkoer, I found the topic of this thread very relevant to some of my own research. It reminded me of other kinds of disasters which were attributed to sudden inexplicable increases of fluid pressure. There's been train disasters, most recently the Canadian tragedy, where "fail-safe brakes" have failed. A loss of fluid pressure would actually apply the brakes, so only a mystery increase in pressure could release them. The other issue is a multitude of hydraulic fluid pressure loss on aircraft landing gear. On some occasions, the landing gear has suddenly dropped under the influence of gravity whilst inflight.

I have an alternative hypothesis: an intermittent geo-force which acts on fluids but not solids. It sounds a strange idea, I know. I have deduced that this mystery force is from fluid exotic matter around the 360 mile diameter innermost core of the Earth. This deduced intermittent force is also a good candidate for the Earth flyby anomaly. What do you think to this left field way of thinking?

I am not sure I really understand what you mean by that. General Relativity is a theory of gravity - and widely believed to be the most accurate one that we currently have, in fact. It actually does predict a change in gravitational effect ("force") as a result of distance from earth.

But it belies common sense. There is no physical mechanism that can be imagined within the mind of a rational human being.

Okay, the point I'm making is that the statement "time runs faster in a lower gravitational field" is incorrect, because grandfather clocks run slower whilst atomic clocks run faster.

"time runs faster in a lower gravitational field" doesn't apply to pendulums. That's my point. Give me some slack please.