A new theory that I have been working on. (Special Relativity Based)

Recommended Posts

So basically, we take this seconds per year measurement, and we literally add the time dilation to it.

31557600.03279

31557600.02085

The satellite is experiencing .012 seconds per year faster in orbit.

As you say this could be any unit of time, so why not take the number of seconds in a day and do the same thing. Then you get:

86400.03279

86400.02085

So by the same logic, the satellite is 0.012 seconds per day faster. Which is (a) different and (b) wrong.

That is the problem when you can't do basic maths and have to invent numbers to make it look like your "equation" works. It turns out that your own numbers prove you lied about being able to calculate this.

Edited by Strange

• Replies 81
• Created

Posted Images

As you say this could be any unit of time, so why not take the number of seconds in a day and do the same thing. Then you get:

86400.03279

86400.02085

So by the same logic, the satellite is 0.012 seconds per day faster. Which is (a) different and (b) wrong.

That is the problem when you can't do basic maths and have to invent numbers to make it look like your "equation" works. It turns out that your own numbers prove you lied about being able to calculate this.

The number you have for seconds in a day is a different scale of time, so the time dilation is representing microseconds per day, not seconds per day.

Time scales, and time doesn't care about how our measurements function.

Edited by Silas_L
Share on other sites

SO! Here is the Satellite thingy mapped out.

AKA: AS 4000; Global Positioning System; Navstar. Status: Operational 1997. First Launch: 1997-01-17. Last Launch: 2009-08-17. Number: 21 .

19927

Gross mass: 2,032 kg

Height: 1.91 m

Span: 11.40 m

In the frequency allocation filing the L1 C/A power is listed as 25.6 Watts. The Antenna gain is listed at 13 dBi. Thus, based on the frequency allocation filing, the power would be about 500 Watts (27 dBW).

We take the information above, (2032kg,500w, 120 watts of energy added from the sun)

20547 Watts when converted

Convert it all with some handy dandy equations (0.03279285053334)

That is the amount of time dilation the satellite experiences in orbit.

On the ground, in addition to the weight of the satellite, its own power, and the energy of space around it, we are taking in to account the atmosphere, soil, structure, rocket fuel, and other weights in the same volume measurement.

So, lets just add a bit of dirt,

1200kg sound good? It's just a bit of rocks, and steel around the clock on the ground. (Like from inside a building)

Turns out to be 32315 watts.

Turns out to be 0.02085083397519

Sattelite in orbit 0.03279285053334

Sattelite on earth 0.02085083397519

If you will recall, from the very first page before I even got the equation correct, I predicted the time dilation between .011 and .012 when measured with MassTime, as predicted by the .0000000004 microsecond per day difference that is calculated for currently.

This doesn't appear to have any calculation accounting for the speed of the satellite. Is that correct? That this is only calculating the gravitational effect? (It's hard to tell what all meaning any of these calculated numbers have. I don't see a volume calculation, for instance)

Share on other sites

This doesn't appear to have any calculation accounting for the speed of the satellite. Is that correct? That this is only calculating the gravitational effect? (It's hard to tell what all meaning any of these calculated numbers have. I don't see a volume calculation, for instance)

The movement would be added to the watts measurement, I detracted it for simplicity here.

The volume is irrelevant, because you are comparing equally voluminous portions of space.

So the measurement, regardless of the volume (because they are equal volumes) would be P/1∝1/(E)

And when you calculate that in to watts, do 1 divided by the watts (1 passage of time in 1 volume of space), you get the time dilation in seconds per year difference, but that can obviously be scaled up and down.

Edited by Silas_L
Share on other sites

The number you have for seconds in a day is a different scale of time, so the time dilation is representing microseconds per day, not seconds per day.

Time scales, and time doesn't care about how our measurements function.

Why microseconds? (A day is not 1 millionth of a year)

And even if microseconds, it is still wrong.

Now: Please show how you calculate "0.0006718379510901w" from this formula.

Share on other sites

Why microseconds? (A day is not 1 millionth of a year)

And even if microseconds, it is still wrong.

Now: Please show how you calculate "0.0006718379510901w" from this formula.

Why microseconds? (A day is not 1 millionth of a year)

And even if microseconds, it is still wrong.

Now: Please show how you calculate "0.0006718379510901w" from this formula.

The ratio works at 1 second per year, and you scale it up and down from that.

That low wattage is the calculation of the positive energy in an empty volume. We know that exists, the higgs field The number in there is arbitrary, I just used the higgs weight.

It is arbitrary becuase we know that it cannot be 0, so just above 0 (regardless) is close.

Edited by Silas_L
Share on other sites

The movement would be added to the watts measurement, I detracted it for simplicity here.

The volume is irrelevant, because you are comparing equally voluminous portions of space.

So the measurement, regardless of the volume (because they are equal volumes) would be P/1∝1/(E)

And when you calculate that in to watts, do 1 divided by the watts (1 passage of time in 1 volume of space), you get the time dilation in seconds per year difference, but that can obviously be scaled up and down.

So if you're ignoring the movement, than the correct time dilation is 45 microseconds per day. 38 is what you get from subtracting the 7 microseconds of kinematic time dilation. So that's 0.0164 seconds per year from this effect. Oops.

Further, we know that kinematic time dilation does not depend on kinetic energy. It depends on the speed only. If it depended on KE then two clocks of different masses would accumulate different amounts of time dilation. That would be bad for various GPS satellites of differing designs. Fortunately we know that this does not happen. Oops again.

Share on other sites

So if you're ignoring the movement, than the correct time dilation is 45 microseconds per day. 38 is what you get from subtracting the 7 microseconds of kinematic time dilation. So that's 0.0164 seconds per year from this effect. Oops.

Further, we know that kinematic time dilation does not depend on kinetic energy. It depends on the speed only. If it depended on KE then two clocks of different masses would accumulate different amounts of time dilation. That would be bad for various GPS satellites of differing designs. Fortunately we know that this does not happen. Oops again.

When the energy of movement is factored in, it will equal out to be .0164.

At work, can't show that now because notes are at home.

Will show later.

Share on other sites

When the energy of movement is factored in, it will equal out to be .0164.

At work, can't show that now because notes are at home.

Will show later.

Ah, but when the movement IS factored in, the answer is 0.00139

And which satellite? Block II sats have a mass of 1660 kg. Block IIA sats have a mass of 1816 kg. Block IIR have a mass of 1080 kg. Block IIF mass is 1630 kg. So the range of KE here is around 1.5, and yet we don't see this variation in the clocks.

Share on other sites

This is a pet theory.

Share on other sites

Yeah, so, Here's an update. With the assistance of you alls wonderfuls pointing out my errors, I have it actually correct now.

These are all real numbers, really referenced, and mathed out.

Here!

You take the Energy and the Mass(Converted to energy for mathematical simplicity) and designate it's volume.

The earth is 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg, and produces 44,000,000,000,000w of energy.

1. Where does "44,000,000,000,000w of energy" come from?

You conviert the KG to W with E=mc2 and boom, two energy measurements.

That is the amount of energy, in volume V (lets say, 1m3)

2. Converting mass to energy with E=mc2 gives you joules not watts. How did you get watts (which is power, not energy)?
3. You have not shown what result you get when you convert the mass to energy.
So, if we take your 5.972 x 1024 kg and multiply by c2 we get 5.367 x 1041 joules. That is 5367 followed by 38 zeroes. This does not appear anywhere in your calculation.

So, you put that number (44421698952483) in the place of P

4. Where does the number "44421698952483" come from? How did you calculate that?

Then devide 1 by P, and you get the ratio of time dilation.

New Question

4a. 1/44421698952483 = 2.25 x 10-14. Why is your result different from this?

SO! Here is the Satellite thingy mapped out.

...

We take the information above, (2032kg,500w, 120 watts of energy added from the sun)

20547 Watts when converted

5. How exactly do you get 20547 watts?

For comparison, if I multiply 2032 kg by c2, I get 1.862 x 1020 joules. This is (a) much bigger than your number and (b) joules not watts.

Convert it all with some handy dandy equations (0.03279285053334)

6. How do you calculate "0.03279285053334" ?

As none of your "calculations" actually make sense, I think you are pulling numbers out of thin air and just pretending you have calculated them.
Share on other sites

This is a pet theory.

I mean, maybe.

But when new information gets added, I don't shun the information, I work with it.

Ah, but when the movement IS factored in, the answer is 0.00139

And which satellite? Block II sats have a mass of 1660 kg. Block IIA sats have a mass of 1816 kg. Block IIR have a mass of 1080 kg. Block IIF mass is 1630 kg. So the range of KE here is around 1.5, and yet we don't see this variation in the clocks.

Differently weighted things need to travel at different speeds to stay in orbit, dependent on the altitude of their orbit. Though the difference is small, it certainly accounts for the time dilation difference between the weights of the crafts. The different speeds can probably be accounted for by the different heights in orbit.

This is going to take a few days to math everything out, and figure out what amount of time the ratio applies to.

But the fact is, the more energy and mass in a space that you account for, the more accurate the ratio will be, and the more energy and mass in a volume, the less time passes per second. That's that.

Edited by Silas_L
Share on other sites

Differently weighted things need to travel at different speeds to stay in orbit, dependent on the altitude of their orbit. Though the difference is small, it certainly accounts for the time dilation difference between the weights of the crafts. The different speeds can probably be accounted for by the different heights in orbit.

Let's see the calculation.

Share on other sites

Give me a few days. This is a shitload of data to crunch, then figure out.

Additionally, the 125gev for the persisitent energy in the universe is off, because the higgs field generates 264gev. This doesnt change much. If the higgs field is above 0, and we know there is a limit of the maximum EnergyMass (black holes), then we know that 1 second is right in the middle of the two. We measure seconds relative to our units of time, but one secone we measure, is like 0.001 seconds as calculated from this, we dont start at 1, we start well below 1.

Share on other sites

Give me a few days. This is a shitload of data to crunch, then figure out.

Why do you need a few days? You claim you have already done the calculations. Just show us (see post 61).

Or do you admit you were just making the numbers up and haven't actually calculated anything?

Share on other sites

Why do you need a few days? You claim you have already done the calculations. Just show us (see post 61).

Or do you admit you were just making the numbers up and haven't actually calculated anything?

Those calculations were made assuming I was accounting for everything It's apparent that I'm not. The idea is still valid, i'm just having a hard time translating an idea in to math, I guess.

Edited by Silas_L
Share on other sites

Just start by explaining the calculations you have done so far. STOP adding new stuff.

Share on other sites

Differently weighted things need to travel at different speeds to stay in orbit, dependent on the altitude of their orbit. Though the difference is small, it certainly accounts for the time dilation difference between the weights of the crafts. The different speeds can probably be accounted for by the different heights in orbit.

Utter nonsense.

Share on other sites

So, the calculations go back to an idea.

The idea is "Time is its own thing". How do we quantify it?

The idea was to follow the inverse of EnergyMass, because that is how and what we observe and determine everything.

The max time was calculated from the higgs field, the minimum time was calculated from matter density (the highest I could find a measurement for was Neutron Star matter) More mass, less time.

When I started to plug in numbers in to the equation (everything converted from whatever it was to joules per second, or watts) I get ratios of time to time.

The maximum ratio of time passage is in an empty volume, the minimum is at a black hole. So the unit of time we need to measure is exactly in the middle of those two things is where a true unit of time passes.

The number that this equation spits out fits on an inverse square, according to this knowledge

So, when we take that output (the lowest time, and fastest time) and slap this number on the inverse square line, it will show the time dilation according to the known energy of the object/volume.

Utter nonsense.

Satellites that are further away actually travel slower. The International Space Station has a Low Earth Orbit, about 400 kilometers (250 miles) above the earth's surface. Objects orbiting at that altitude travel about 28,000 kilometers per hour (17,500 miles per hour).Jan 17, 2013

Edited by Silas_L

Share on other sites

1. Where does "44,000,000,000,000w of energy" come from?
This was the number of the earths energy that is being produced, as 44 terawatts
2. Converting mass to energy with E=mc2 gives you joules not watts. How did you get watts (which is power, not energy)?
Joules per second is watts
3. You have not shown what result you get when you convert the mass to energy.
I'll do that.
4. Where does the number "44421698952483" come from? How did you calculate that?
This one is irrelivant now, becuase I see the errors that were made calculating it. (I just did KG to watts, and 44tw of energy, no movement, no nothing else)
4a. 1/44421698952483 = 2.25 x 10-14. Why is your result different from this
Again, I oopsed on the calculations for the earth.
6. How do you calculate "0.03279285053334"
This number is also irrelivant, becuase it doesn't take in to account the speed.
But its 1 divided by 32315
Edited by Silas_L
Share on other sites

What is wrong with you? Why can you not just answer a few simple questions?

1. Where does "44,000,000,000,000w of energy" come from?

This was the number of the earths energy that is being produced, as 44 terawatts

I didn't ask what it was, I asked where it came from: source / citation / reference / link ...

2. Converting mass to energy with E=mc2 gives you joules not watts. How did you get watts (which is power, not energy)?
Joules per second is watts

I know (anyone over the age of 12 knows) that joules per second is watts.

What I asked was: How did you get watts (which is power, not energy)?

Or did you just ignore the rules of science and mathematics and just assume that you could magically convert joules to watts?

3. You have not shown what result you get when you convert the mass to energy.
I'll do that.

Why not do it now? You claim to have done these calculations: show us.

6. How do you calculate "0.03279285053334"
This number is also irrelivant, becuase it doesn't take in to account the speed.
But its 1 divided by 32315

So how did you calculate 32315 ? You just say:

1200kg sound good? It's just a bit of rocks, and steel around the clock on the ground. (Like from inside a building)

Turns out to be 32315 watts.

But, again, if I convert 1200kg to energy (note: energy, not power) I get about 1020 joules. That is, 1 followed by 20 zeroes. That is not 32315.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1200+kg+*+c%5E2

So, it seems that in every single step in your "calculation" you make some sort of error (like, not doing the claimed calculation at all) and yet you still think the results are meaningful.

p.s. can I suggest that you use some sort of online resource like Wolfram Alpha to do your calculations in future. It will make sure that (a) the numbers are correct and (b) you get the right units (e.g. joules not watts).

Share on other sites

What is wrong with you? Why can you not just answer a few simple questions?

I didn't ask what it was, I asked where it came from: source / citation / reference / link ...

I know (anyone over the age of 12 knows) that joules per second is watts.

What I asked was: How did you get watts (which is power, not energy)?

Or did you just ignore the rules of science and mathematics and just assume that you could magically convert joules to watts?

Why not do it now? You claim to have done these calculations: show us.

So how did you calculate 32315 ? You just say:

But, again, if I convert 1200kg to energy (note: energy, not power) I get about 1020 joules. That is, 1 followed by 20 zeroes. That is not 32315.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1200+kg+*+c%5E2

So, it seems that in every single step in your "calculation" you make some sort of error (like, not doing the claimed calculation at all) and yet you still think the results are meaningful.

p.s. can I suggest that you use some sort of online resource like Wolfram Alpha to do your calculations in future. It will make sure that (a) the numbers are correct and (b) you get the right units (e.g. joules not watts).

Basically, what I am getting from this, is that I am wreckless with numbers and firm with ideas.

I need to be slower with this, and check my shit twice before I throw numbers.

Edited by Silas_L
Share on other sites

Basically, what I am getting from this, is that I am wreckless with numbers and firm with ideas.

I need to be slower with this, and check my shit twice before I throw numbers.

You could also concede that your "equation" is not an equation and cannot be used to calculate anything (because it has $\propto$ rather than =).

Also, your claim that time dilation is inversely proportional to mass+energy is shown to be wrong experimentally.

How about you go back to school and do an introduction to physics and a first year course in algebra.

Share on other sites

You could also concede that your "equation" is not an equation and cannot be used to calculate anything (because it has $\propto$ rather than =).

Also, your claim that time dilation is inversely proportional to mass+energy is shown to be wrong experimentally.

How about you go back to school and do an introduction to physics and a first year course in algebra.

I'll admit my mathematics are completely off base.

I posted it here for exactly that reason.

The information that I have gotten from this is very helpful.