The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?  (Read 10202 times)

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
  • Thanked: 122 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #50 on: 13/02/2016 23:37:47 »
Ah Colin - well I hadn't been going to post the maths only for your benefit, which is just as well.  It would seem you are telling me that you are not really all that interested.
No, the word I used was busy, not disinterested. Only just back from long day, and out most of tomorrow. Sleep my main priority, but will look at what your posting when I can give it quality timey  :)

PS
The pendulum has a shorter swing being subject to less gravitational energy at elevation. 
No, as I said the period is longer, hence wider swing because there is less gravitational restoring force for the KE.
« Last Edit: 13/02/2016 23:50:25 by Colin2B »
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #51 on: 14/02/2016 00:19:49 »
Timey, there are quite a number of things that you are referring to that actually have been proven to happen in exactly the opposite way that you say they do.
I notice that a number of people are now trying to point these discrepancies with observations out and will sit back and see how everyones understanding develops on this subject before commenting any further. 
As I mentioned earlier, I can not mathematically express anything I can not geometrically visualise. I am having trouble fitting your ideas into a geometry that makes sense to me without throwing out a large part of our accumulated observational evidence.
I find it very hard personally to go directly agains observations. I never have a problem with considering a different cause for observations, but theories in the end are there to explain observations.
Observations at this stage say that a few things work the opposite way that your theory predicts.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #52 on: 14/02/2016 00:33:24 »
There are some unusual symbols in timey's script but if I can use the nearest conventional characters, it is stated that

ψ = d/Φ10 = u      ................. (1)

and r - u =  ψ  ........................(2)

therefore we know that r = 2u so u/r =

but it is later stated that u/r = √2

also that u/ψ = 3.5 which is clearly inconsistent with  equation (1) which shows u/ψ = 1

Sorry, lass, you will have to explain yourself a lot better than this. You might begin by stating what the symbols represent, then how they are related by physics, i.e. what known laws or assumptions lile behind the equations. Then check the equations for dimensional balance: if mass, length and time don't appear to the same power on both sides, there's something wrong. And don't forget to eliminate any absurdities such as the ones shown here.

Remember that relativity is based on one assumption only: that the speed of light is the same for all observers, and that assumption has been experimentally verified to an absurd degree of precision. If you want to challenge or refine GR, you'll need some very robust evidence for any other assumptions you bring to the party.   
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #53 on: 14/02/2016 00:50:20 »
Alan, it goes:

d/golden ratio*10 power 1 = u
(d/golden ratio*10power 1) + (golden ratio/0.41*10 power 1 = 0.41) = r

u/r = square root 2
r/u = B*

Those are the dimensions between r and u.

You have been confused by the initial ITT time dilation sybmbol, which is simply stating (as far as I'm concerned) that the following equation = ITT time dilation.

Edit: r minus u = ITT time dilation, and r/ITT time dilation = 0.41

P.S.  Run that through your scientific calculator to confirm the 6 constants of the formula.  If it checks out Alan, then take all the aspects of the Lorentz transformation, both inverted and otherwise, divide them by each other, and if you don't find the constants square root 2, and 0.4, come back then and tell me "sorry lass".  Otherwise you are hardly being fair! - and furthermore, I have not at any point challenged the constant speed of light, I have merely said it takes a longer or shorter amount of 'time' to cover units of distance when exposed to changes in the rate of time.

Alan, the formula will equate any parallax distance to any light source, and the dimensions of r and u will always divide to square root 2 and B*, and r minus u will always equal ITT time dilation, and r/ITT time dilation will always equal 0.41 of that distance, but for a starter checking distance, just plug in 16.18, and in the interests of honesty, I'm pretty naffed of with your use of the word 'absurdities'... Just saying!
« Last Edit: 14/02/2016 02:05:11 by timey »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #54 on: 14/02/2016 11:13:01 »
Cool, cool, Colin.

...and my brain has fuzzed on the pendulum.  I surely can't see which way is up now, :) blimey.  Anyway, 'tis mute point tbh...  I was, quite some years ago now, trying to think why Einstein predicted clocks tick faster at elevation, and the activity of a pendulum was my conclusion.  Be this relevant?  Not really!

I'm looking forward to hearing your response on my maths.  Please note the 'index of terms', top right hand corner.  I can see it quite clearly on the limited inches of my phone screen, but others seem to have missed it!
Furthermore, I hope you are in the realisation that this formula was derived from a 'to scale' geometrical diagram.  Geometry is actually 'pure' mathematics, and will only produce advanced mathematics.  Can you handle advanced mathematics Colin?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #55 on: 14/02/2016 18:40:09 »
So  now we have

d/10Φ = u

and d/10Φ + Φ/4.1 = r

so u + Φ/4.1 = r

If you assert u/r = √2 then u = √2r

so r = √2 + Φ/4.1 = 1.414 + 1.618/4.1 = 1.8
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #56 on: 14/02/2016 19:14:46 »
Well... The way you have expressed those figures is unfamiliar to me.  I'm presuming the 10golden ratio is indeed golden ratio 10 power 1.  You have used slightly different means to same results.

I understand that in algebra, equations must show balance in both sides... so in achieving r, which is a two sided equation, I used an aspect and divided a constant x 10 power 1, and on other side, I used a constant and divided a constant x 10 power 1 to achieve 0.41.

You have come a different route to 1.8.  I simply divided 9/5 units.  That's what I was looking at on the diagram, is why.
« Last Edit: 14/02/2016 19:20:40 by timey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #57 on: 14/02/2016 19:43:08 »
I think we are getting somewhere. It would be helpful if you could explain what all your symbols represent, and if you could use a more conventional notation for your equations.

It seems that you are stating as definitions

 Φ/10 = 360/Φ which is plainly untrue, and

10Φ = 360/0.1Φ which is also clearly wrong.

Also 10Φ/0.1Φ = 100 = α, which will serve as a definition of α, but then

10Φ/α = 0.162, not 3.5

Once we have cleared up these anomalies, I might enquire as to how Φ got involved in the first instance, then how time dilatation is related to velocity in a zero field, which according to SR and experiment, it is. Then having solved SR, maybe you can take my hand and guide me through GR!

 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #58 on: 14/02/2016 21:41:09 »
Ah... I think I see the problem here...  You are referring to the 'index of terms'.  Top right hand corner.  This is just a list showing 'how' I'm using terms 'in' which way.

d = parallax distance
a = apex curvature
golden ratio/10 power 1 = 360/golden ratio x 10 power 1 = 22.24
(I've inverted the direction of the strike through in the circle of the symbol, because this representation is the opposite of the way I am using the golden ratio x 10 power 1)
golden ratio x 10 power 1 = 360/golden ratio/10 power 1 = 16.18
ITT symbol = ITT time dilation

This is just giving terms.

Now go to bottom left hand corner:
golden ratio x 10 power 1/golden ratio/10 power 1... This is quite simply 16.18/22.24 = Embree Trefethen constant = a (GR)
(Lol! I can see your confusion now, I should have used the constant 4.5 there...and I canny remember which one it is...argggh)
golden ratio x 10 power 1/4.5 = 3.5 = a (ITT)
(I believe the 3.5 is a bifurcation of a Fiegenbaun constant)

...and: golden ratio got involved because my diagram is using them in matrices.

This formula is 'just' a description of light travelling at constant velocity light speed across space in slower rates of time, not faster rates of time.

The Lorentz transformations make a description of length contraction, and distance dilation.  This theory states that this notion is mistaken.  That a length contraction is a time contraction and distance dilation is a time dilation.  This formula gives these dimensions of that scenario, and holds distance as a constant.

The dimensions of this formula should match dimensions in the Lorentz transformations, if you take all the aspects of both the inverse representation, and the non-inverse representation, and divide all of them by each other.

If they don't, I'm wrong...
« Last Edit: 15/02/2016 01:21:32 by timey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #59 on: 15/02/2016 08:38:43 »
You might simplify matters initially by remembering that 101 = 10, and indeed any number n to the first power is n.

The figure 360 is familiar as the number of degrees in a circle, and since Φ is a pure number, 360/Φ will be an angle, 22.24, so Φ cannot equal 360/Φ. Unless the 360 came from somewhere else - please explain.

Mention of parallax distance suggests you are describing an astronomic measurement, so in stating Ψ = d/10Φ you have asserted that time dilatation is a function of distance only, which is experimentally untrue and dimensionally incorrect.

If you have hidden a dimensioned normalisation factor, please elucidate for the benefit of simple souls like me!
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #60 on: 16/02/2016 10:25:19 »
Ok... I've fixed it now...

Index of terms:
d - parallax distance
a - apex curvature
golden ratio/10 power 1 - 360/golden ratio x 10 power 1 = 22.24
(I've inverted the direction of the strike through in the circle of the symbol, because this representation is the opposite of the way I am using the golden ratio x 10 power 1)
golden ratio x 10 power 1 - 360/golden ratio/10 power 1 - 16.18
ITT symbol - ITT time dilation

This formula holds distance as a constant in respect to the constant speed of light.
 
Ah, ohhhh... (n)... Good, your explanation has just cleared up a whole reams of mystery in the maths education lectures I've watched!  Thanks!
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #61 on: 16/02/2016 10:40:33 »
Mention of parallax distance suggests you are describing an astronomic measurement, so in stating Ψ = d/10Φ you have asserted that time dilatation is a function of distance only, which is experimentally untrue and dimensionally incorrect.

Yes I am dividing 360 degrees of angle by the golden ratio in an inverse and non-inverse form.

A parallax distance has been ascertained by parallax method.  Degrees of angle have been employed in this method of parallax.

This formula is based on units of distance and units of time having been rendered equivalent.  (r) is describing that the speed of light, under present physics remits of faster time (relative to earth), is 'equating' that a distance is r minus u too long.  That r minus u equals ITT time dilation.  Turning the extra distance back into u, we can ascertain by how much 'time' is going slower in space, and that a parallax distance (based on angles) is always 0.41 of itself 'shorter' than we currently believe.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #62 on: 16/02/2016 13:15:33 »
Φ/10 - 3600/137.5 = 0.162 - 26.2 = 26.02, not 22.24.

And the numbers still seem somewhat arbitrary. What has the golden ratio got to do with it? Why multiply by 10?

Either I've walked in halfway though the film, or, like Star Wars, it never made sense in the first place (explosions don't billow in space, and laser swords are nonsense). I'd like to believe the former, so some explanation would be welcome.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #63 on: 16/02/2016 15:25:28 »
Golden ratio multiplied by 10 power 1, as far as I am aware, simply moves the decimal point.

1.618 transposed to 16.18.

We can arrive at this figure by:
360/golden ratio x 10 power 1 = 16.18

360/16.18= 22.24

16.18/22.24=  Embree Trefethen constant

I realise Alan, that my representation of the maths are not conforming to convention.  But the numbers 'are' there, if 'you' can represent them in better format.

Of course, my notion is 'just' an expression of logic. (Perhaps). Don't worry... if I am pissing in the wind, I'll make sure the wind doesn't change direction while I'm doing it.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #64 on: 16/02/2016 19:51:29 »
But even if the ET constant had anythng to do with it,

16.18/22.24=0.7275

ET constant = 0.7026
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #65 on: 16/02/2016 20:29:29 »
Well, I 'can' tell you that there are constants emerging from the diagram.  Whether some of these constants are unlisted constants or not?  I do not know, but they emerge constantly, with each equation within the numbers.

I know for a fact that square root 2 'is' emerging.  It has to because the diagram is using the square to diagonal.  Please understand that on A4, I'm not going to get more than 1 number after the decimal point from a diagram.  This is limiting somewhat!

Please note that the golden ratio's proper representation is: 1.61803398874, or, more precisely (edit: didn't copy over the equation I copy and pasted) ...and the 22.24 (which is already an abbreviation) ...it's proper representation will then be altered.

Oh for a 'proper' scientific calculator and a wide screen computer... I'm stuck on an iphone4 here.

Does it compute to the ET constant under it's unabbreviated form?
« Last Edit: 16/02/2016 20:32:03 by timey »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #66 on: 16/02/2016 20:52:55 »
Alas, no. Nor is there any reason why it should. Whilst Φ and β* are "natural" numbers arising from a mathematical sequence, 360 is an arbitrary number derived from Babylonian timekeeping. It has no more scientific significance than 400 (the number of grads in a circle) and a lot less than 2π (the number of radians). 
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #67 on: 16/02/2016 21:01:12 »
If you divide the equivalent units of each radius by each radius number, ie:
16.8/12 = 1.4
...you will find that each equation equals 1.4.
Given that my diagram was more accurate, I believe this number would add up to 1.41421, this being the Pythagoras constant for square root 2.

If you divide the radius number by the units, you arrive at a constant of 0.71428571.

Did it compute to anything near: 0.71428571 ?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #68 on: 16/02/2016 23:34:49 »
Nowhere near. Using your longer value for Φ we get

10Φ/(360/10Φ) = 0.727231663523274 and a bit

Where did the 16.8/12 come from? You talk about "radius" and "radius number", but you are mixing dimensions. Radius is a length, which could be in meters, fathoms or parsecs, but 12 is a pure number. The quotient of a radius by a constant can be anything at all depending on how you measured the radius, and it will have dimension of length. √2 has no dimension.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #69 on: 16/02/2016 23:36:22 »
I might be way off West with this one, but as the B* is not the constant of the 16.18/22.24 unabbreviated equation.  Then the reverse equation 22.24/16.18 = something near: 1.374536464771323 is not going to be the Boltzman constant:  1.38064852(79)  ?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #70 on: 16/02/2016 23:48:53 »
Yes.. But on the basis of reversing the equation 16.8/12=1.4, which should actually equal 1.41421, being the constant square root 2, it should be possible to arrive at the unabbreviated version of 16.8.

This then should alter the reverse equation.  12/16.8+numbers.  Might it alter it to the point of matching this number: 0.727231663523274 and a bit. ?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #71 on: 16/02/2016 23:53:05 »
k = 1.38064852 10-23 m2 kg s-2 K-1, so apart from the fact that Boltzmann is a dimensioned constant involving length, mass, time and temperature, and yours isn't, your number is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times too large.

Numerology is not the key to physics.

Quote
16.8/12=1.4, which should actually equal 1.41421
No "should" about it. The quotient is exactly 1.4. No need for a calculator. The only number that can equal √2 when divided by 12 is, mysteriously, 12√2 = 16.97056 and a bit. 

« Last Edit: 16/02/2016 23:59:56 by alancalverd »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #72 on: 17/02/2016 00:03:42 »
Actually my theory is exactly about length, mass, time and temperature.  All of those considerations, maybe not temperature, just 'yet', are within the formula.

I'm not doing numerology, I'm doing geometry.

The r is on the diagonal, and u is on the square.

Did you try reversing the equation 16.8/12 = 'should be' square root 2 to get the precise number for 16.8 ?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #73 on: 17/02/2016 00:12:00 »
16.97056 and a bit is just fine.

I'll send you the rest of the numbers.  If we can get the precise numbers like such above.  This will make all the difference!
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4696
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #74 on: 17/02/2016 00:14:17 »
No. 16.8 is a number you introduced into the discussion, ex nihilo, apparently. The only thing that should be √2 is √2, which is irrational and therefore cannot be the ratio of any rational numbers.

Boltzmann has nothing to do with geometry and is not a natural number, it is an arbitrary experimental result that depends on the freezing and boiling points of water at sea level, and its value has no universal significance.
« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 00:20:18 by alancalverd »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #74 on: 17/02/2016 00:14:17 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length