swansont Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 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. True, preaching to the choir does have a high success rate. The tough crowd is comprised of people who want actual scientific evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottTheSculptor Posted April 5, 2011 Author Share Posted April 5, 2011 (edited) 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. Edited April 5, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Tripolation Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 ScottV Solver of the universe. I just may have to steal that and make it my signature on every paper and problem I turn into my professors. That's awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottTheSculptor Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) 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 Edited April 6, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottTheSculptor Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 “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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottTheSculptor Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 "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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 An equation built from empirical data will always be discarded for one built from first principles if they are equally accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottTheSculptor Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 No, not without numerical predictions it explains none of the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottTheSculptor Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) No, not without numerical predictions it explains none of the above. Numerical predictions from an equation doesn't count? Please consider your reply before hitting send. Edited April 7, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I see how closed minded you all are. So many posts in the speculations section end up with statements like this. Modern science is not just philosophy and mathematical modes are essential in physics. If you cannot accept that then I cannot see this thread developing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottTheSculptor Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) So many posts in the speculations section end up with statements like this. Modern science is not just philosophy and mathematical modes are essential in physics. If you cannot accept that then I cannot see this thread developing. I fail to comprehend what you find wrong with the equation. You have not disproven it by showing that it doesn't work. Until the slope is found it can not be disproven. Edited April 7, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 What equation. Also, I fail to see how one equation can accurately predict all of those phenomena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottTheSculptor Posted April 7, 2011 Author Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) What equation. Also, I fail to see how one equation can accurately predict all of those phenomena. That is the elegance of it. The equation is to replace C with a linear equation. The slope of the line is the time gradient to the sun. The reference is to use our mean orbital radius as C as we measure it. The gradient is not steep. It can be determined by taking the WAAS data which is referenced to WGS-84 with its zero at the center of the earth and translate the distance to the sun at the exact annual time and compare it to the time correction for that "distance to the sun". C varies in reference to distance to the sun. The theory states that this will derive the slope. This replaces "rotational relativity". It changes no other physics. I am working on it but, really,. . . I'm a sculptor. I have just read WGS-84 and am working out how to do the translations. I had to look up the word "ephemeris" earlier. I am relentless. I am a logic savant. You can not stop me. I have the solution to the universe. I'd just get there quicker with some help ;-) --- By the way. . . .the entire solution to the universe was worked out online in real time. There is a trail of links. There is one hop but you will find it in the end. Edited April 8, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 I just put forth a theory. As scientists you are supposed to prove or disprove. My theory is: I have an invisible troll that lives in my attic leaving no trace of its presence who can solve complex differential equations in its head. Do you believe this? If you don't, have you disproven it? -or- You have the role of science incorrect. Science does not have to treat every idea as valid until completely disproven. What science does is be very skeptical of every new idea until evidence supporting the new idea is presented. And, when overturning an idea that already has evidence, there has to be even stronger evidence that the new idea is better. So, let's see it. Let's see some evidence. Let's see your equation's predictions and how well they agree to the measurements. Please show the predictions from the current theory, and how your predictions are superior to the current ones. Do this, and everyone on this forum will be reading with eyes wide open. Do it not, and expect more skepticism. It really is that simple. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csmyth3025 Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) Swansont is much more patient than am I. In all of the posts you've made I have yet to read a single statement that can even remotely be considered scientific, predictive or even coherent. I offer you the following quote from the Wikipedia article on Global Positioning Error Analysis: According to the theory of relativity, due to their constant movement and height relative to the Earth-centered, non-rotating approximately inertial reference frame, the clocks on the satellites are affected by their speed. Special relativity predicts that the frequency of the atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground clocks by a factor of , or result in a delay of about 7 μs/day, where the orbital velocity is v = 4 km/s, and c = the speed of light. The time dilation effect has been measured and verified using the GPS. The effect of gravitational frequency shift on the GPS due to general relativity is that a clock closer to a massive object will be slower than a clock farther away. Applied to the GPS, the receivers are much closer to Earth than the satellites, causing the GPS clocks to be faster by a factor of 5×10^(-10), or about 45.9 μs/day. This gravitational frequency shift is noticeable. When combining the time dilation and gravitational frequency shift, the discrepancy is about 38 microseconds per day... (ref. http://en.wikipedia....itioning_System ) Please explain in specific mathematical detail how you reconcile your notion that time runs faster close to the sun by virtue of the sun's consumption of energy with the verified Special and General relativistic effects of clocks in orbit around the Earth vs clocks on the ground. Chris ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I fail to comprehend what you find wrong with the equation. You have not disproven it by showing that it doesn't work. Until the slope is found it can not be disproven. As Klaynos said: "What equation?" You haven't presented a single equation. How on Earth can you claim to be a "logic savant" in one sentence and then turn around and claim that we haven't disproven an equation that doesn't exist. That is not logical. Chris Edited to correct spelling errors Edited April 8, 2011 by csmyth3025 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottTheSculptor Posted April 8, 2011 Author Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) So it is a matrix translation in polar coordinates. The earth centered coorindate to the solar centered one. The WAAS data I see is "weekly" time. Hope I can find it in annual time. I will reply to the logical posts. To the math question: The speed of light is still relative, it's just that time is a variable now. Leave it at current C and radius from sun and everything is fine. The "slope" is the time variable. "speed of light" over distance to star. -- you can see where the "rotational relativity" evened it out . . .all except that little bit of extra path on one side . . . Or maybe you don't I "see" the mathematics. The true stuff. I can not "see" "rotational relativity". Just because I have difficulty manipulating symbols doesn't mean my mind is otherwise useless. There is still the "noise" in the variability in mass of the sun. Someone clever should back out the predicted time shift beween mass variation events and time rate change here on earth. It will be small. It is not necessary here. -- Imagine what a time gradient would look like. It is accounted for in relativity. Einstein was a genius. Edited April 8, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 So it is a matrix translation in polar coordinates. Great, please post it in all its [math]r[/math] and [math]\theta[/math] glory. And graphs of the predictions it makes compared to measurements and the predictions current theory makes, please. Show us exactly how good your model really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) I will reply to the logical posts. Apparently with an illogical response To the math question: The speed of light is still relative, it's just that time is a variable now. Leave it at current C and radius from sun and everything is fine. The "slope" is the time variable. "speed of light" over distance to star. -- you can see where the "rotational relativity" evened it out . . .all except that little bit of extra path on one side . . . Or maybe you don't I "see" the mathematics. The true stuff. I can not "see" "rotational relativity". Just because I have difficulty manipulating symbols doesn't mean my mind is otherwise useless. There is still the "noise" in the variability in mass of the sun. Someone clever should back out the predicted time shift beween mass variation events and time rate change here on earth. It will be small. It is not necessary here. Read your own post. Does this look like a convincing mathematical argument? Somehow you managed to do it all without one single equation. You've yet to give a testable prediction or any thing that remotely resembles a convincing argument. Great, please post it in all its r and \theta glory. And graphs of the predictions it makes compared to measurements and the predictions current theory makes, please. Show us exactly how good your model really is. Yes, by all means show us a post full of [math] \oint [/math] and [math] \partial x [/math]. Edited April 8, 2011 by mississippichem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottTheSculptor Posted April 8, 2011 Author Share Posted April 8, 2011 Great, please post it in all its [math]r[/math] and [math]\theta[/math] glory. And graphs of the predictions it makes compared to measurements and the predictions current theory makes, please. Show us exactly how good your model really is. That *is* what I am trying to do. I just need the slope and everything falls in place. New universe. New mysteries. Still need annual WAAS data . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 That *is* what I am trying to do. I just need the slope and everything falls in place. Well, then, if you don't have it today, why so sure that your model is so great? Why the self-aggrandizing when you don't even have a complete model? How can you be so sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 That *is* what I am trying to do. I just need the slope and everything falls in place. New universe. New mysteries. Still need annual WAAS data . . . . Glad to know that you've reduced all of relativistic physics to a set of linear equations. Contact the Nobel prize commission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottTheSculptor Posted April 8, 2011 Author Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) Glad to know that you've reduced all of relativistic physics to a set of linear equations. Contact the Nobel prize commission. Awesome, isn't it. Just one more calculation and the two theories mesh completely. Einstein was a super genius. He left it just exactly where it needed to be to mesh. I hope you all grow to appreciate this as the world realizes. OMG! HE DID NOT HAVE THE DATA! --- Somebody. Please, please help me find the slope. Edited April 8, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Somebody. Please, please help me find the slope. Here's a suggestion: post the equation just using a variable for what you call the "slope". Say k. i.e. [math]c(x) = c_0 + kx[/math]. Then, make predictions with your model for various values of k near what you expect it to be. And show some results. Most equations are manipulated in symbolic form until the very end when the values are then put in. You don't need the exact value of your slope to make predictions with the model or post equations. Show us something instead of just story telling about how good it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts