1

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 26/08/2018 07:06:50 »

Thanks, the link works.
I’ll have a read later.

2

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 28/03/2018 22:55:50 »

@timey - “@Colin2B, I will be back with a revised page 5 at some point soon. Am I getting it across so far though?”

I’ll have a read through these and get back to you, might be a couple of days so keep posting if you want to.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can we see space expanding?

« on: 15/03/2018 18:05:52 »

  how can a theory of everything be a theory of everything if there are objects out there we can't account for

Surely, a theory is a scientifically/mathematically constructed idea about how things might be, or might work.  If all the relevant factors were actually known; their description would be a factual account, not a theory.

4

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 14/02/2018 15:15:12 »

OK, glad to hear you are clear about your theory, but there are a lot of items you will need to cover in your paper. You can't rely on someone coming back with questions like we do, you need to cover any possible question first, remember busy people no time. You can put detail and discussion into appendices in order to keep body text succinct.

If time was faster in the past and is slower now, then my contraction would be decelerating as mass further clumps.

You will need to explain why move from slower to faster is not a deceleration.

(Please remember that these changes in time that I am stating as affecting everything universally are not 'the' changes in time we observe of clocks in the gravity potential, although all rates of time of 'everything' will be affected b/c 'everywhere' is)

I had assumed that, but it is still a change of state from time past to time present, and light + universe radius are moving through it, so you will have to explain why it doesn’t result in a deceleration. After all, you state it is the cause of the acceleration so it must have an overall effect.

one can observe light that has travelled through the gravitational field of a mass, but one only observes that light when it arrives in the reference frame one is observing from. (that being my point)

My (and @alancalverd ) point also. But you will need to make this clear in statements such as:

“Yes, the light will be blueshifted if it passes by a gravitational mass, but this will not result in a blueshifted observation.  It just minuses the redshift, but only very slightly.”

Otherwise the reader will assume you mean a shift is detected at the observing point.

Lot’s left to do, but you are making progress towards a paper.

5

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 08/02/2018 18:34:52 »

So:

c^2t^2/2R= extra distance travelled due to acceleration?
(Where t is the age of the universe.)

No, total distance travelled, from rest, at a given acceleration of c^2/R
Extra distance due to acceleration depends what you are comparing it to eg constant speed ct

s = at²/2, as we said earlier, so 13.8 x  c⁴/2R²  billion light years.

@alancalverd Alan, did you mean c²/2R x 13.8² billion light years.

I’m still not sure how Smolin derived c²/R as being the acceleration.

Well you have length^2/(time^2 x length) = c^2/R. That looks an awful lot like acceleration. Whether or not the value is valid is another matter entirely.

6

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 23/01/2018 17:26:45 »

@timey  “Maybe it might help if I give a quick breakdown of the video...”
Devil is always in the detail. From your summary I wouldn’t have noticed the terminology issues.
I need to go through in detail and ill keep a list of items worth changing.

7

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 19/01/2018 15:49:58 »

But this being quite important, just to check, is it your advice to use the actual workingout sheets used in my YouTube lecture and the descriptions thereof in short? 

Yes, endorsers are busy people who dont want to sit through a lecture but will skim a paper skipping what is easily understood. You could include diagrams with enough description to explain what the methodology is.

And then only mention other inverse functions in passing? (noting references at end).

That depends. There is no point telling these people about the general principle or examples of use of inverse functions (they will know that), however, if someone has used inverse function in the same way as yourself and the method and conclusions support your case then that is relevant. What you need to do however is not just quote the link, you need to extract an explanation of the specific points as a summary then provide a reference number to the list of papers and links at the end.

...and yes, it is exactly the fact that "any local density will cause a variation of gravity potential and the field gradient vector" that is the basis for a further testing of gereral relativity to gain experimental evidence that a greater density of mass will cause a slower rate of time as Einstein's general relativity predicted, but your comments about making this clearer are taken on board.

Sorry, my post contained a typo due to typing quick notes, it should of course be “potential gradient vector”.or more correctly “the gradient vector field of the gravitational potential”.
As you know, current experiments show that lines of gravitational equipotential change in distance from earth centre in areas of higher density. That change is such that the line is further from earth centre, so relative to an area the same distance from earth centre, but over a lower density we would expect the clocks to run slower eg a clock over an iron deposit will tick slower relative to a clock over a hollow cave. We know that field and equipotential lines do not cross, so if your methodology predicts the opposite clock rate change then clearly clock rates do not vary with gravitational potential and you need to explain why this is so, and what you believe the true description should be.

And then maybe ditch section 3 altogether as an examination of bounce models, and just present my bounce model, (putting references at the end),

You could keep this as a discussion, either before your method or as an annex. However, you tend to just refer to these papers and leave the reader to go away and extract relevant points. It would be better if you summarised the key findings for each paper and again number in text to point to reference section. You need to make it easy for the reader to grasp the key points of your argument without having to do the leg work themselves. Think busy people, make it hard they will put it to one side for later ie never.

8

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 18/01/2018 17:34:44 »

This link to my mathematical description of the proposed spacetime structure is provided in the paper.

I think @jeff was expecting to find the maths in the paper, which is the usual format, even if it is a graphical presentation of the maths.

In order to improve your chances of getting an endorsement, it would be worth looking at some of the papers on arxiv and using a similar layout, putting all references at the end and including your main arguments in the discussion section and a conclusions summary.

I was going to comment on the links problem but looks as though you are going to sort that.

A comment on page 6 where you write:
“placing 2 clocks in differing locations that share the same longitude (to equalize centripetal motion) and the same height from centre of earth (to equalize position in gravity field), but in locations of known significant difference in geological density”
You need to explain more about what you mean by “equalising the position in the gravity field” -  placing the clocks equal distance from the centre of earth doesn’t do that. The relationship between distance from earth centre and gravitational potential assumes an even distribution of mass, any local density will cause a variation of gravitational potential and the field gradient vector.
If near this “location of ... significant difference in ... density” the clock ticks faster then this implies that relative clock rate is not directly dependant on relative gravitational potential. This is a major conclusion and dwarfs any bounce theory, as such it should be clearly stated in the abstract and conclusions and the main body should make it clear why this occurs.

I wouldn’t bother showing examples of use of inverse functions. Anyone familiar with this area will understand how they are used, but will want to see you explain why and how you have used them in this particular case - this should be in main body.

Do you have a newer version that you have proof read? There are a number of typos etc.

Hope that’s helpful.

9

New Theories / Re: What causes Earth's Seasons?

« on: 17/07/2017 17:04:29 »

as I understand it, the earth does not get 'in' the Sun's forward path. 

Timey is right, the planet's movement is always perpendicular to the sun's face. We are never moving into the Sun's path.
Although the distance between earth and sun varies this is due to the elliptical orbit and we are never following or moving ahead of the sun.

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is there a minimum and a maximum frequency for radiation on the EM spectrum?

« on: 15/07/2017 17:15:15 »

Doppler shift: the origin or base frequency (determined by design and settings of emitter) remains constant, but perceived frequency varies with motion of emitter or detector or both.
Measure the freq approaching as f1. Measure the freq receding as f2.
Base freq f=sqrt(f1*f2).
In a g-field, observing a static clock A results in a perceived doppler shift depending on
observer position relative to A. Moving A to a different position changes it's base frequency.

A clock is a frequency so why should there be any difference from photon to clock?
Light loses energy in leaving the surface of a mass. A clock runs slower on the surface than above it, so what's the difference?
And then there's the light clock! (it’s a clock and it’s light)

What do you think?

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does a massive object “pressurize” the local continuum?

« on: 10/07/2017 00:22:05 »

Thank you Evan for your thought provoking reply.
Are you suggesting that there is a "gravitational equivalent" to magnetism?
That is something to think about.
regards
rich

Yes, there is a gravitational analog of magnetism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism

All the forces should have an analog but gravity is too weak to notice easily and the other two forces have too short of a range so we only notice "magnetic effects" of electromagnetism in every day life. However, we know there is an analog of magnetism for gravity because of frame dragging and gravitational waves (both too weak to see easily but still measured). It's not exactly the same as magnetism because gravity is different (modeled as the curvature of spacetime and electromagnetism has two charges while gravity seems to only have one). It's still a useful analogy.

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What are the implications of cosmic inflation?

« on: 03/07/2017 13:11:03 »

Now THAT is a very interesting question. Which I will need to think about.

NOTE: I wouldn't say the strength of the forces change. It is the background environment that changes.

13

Just Chat! / Re: Is the emergence of terrorism activity a zombie-like invasion?

« on: 09/06/2017 10:18:34 »

And just to make it clear, in case anyone gets hold of the wrong end of the stick...

I am a pacifist who is against all types of violence and oppression.

Your replies are welcome and very informative.
Remember that being an independent investigator is a honorable distinction for anyone of us seeking to share
wisdom...

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Do the results of NIST 2010 relativity test show same result as Pound Rebka?

« on: 20/11/2016 08:01:56 »

Do the results of NIST 2010 relativity test show same result as Pound Rebka
That is, that a lower clock will measure light emitted at a higher level as blue shifted.

I am posting this as a separate thread from "Are NIST 2010 ground relativity test results exactly as relativity predicts?" http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68961.msg502803#msg502803 out of respect for Timey's request that we not provide explanations in that thread, but just answer the question:

Ethos -

I am not asking questions because I do not know the answers to them.
I do not need to have the difference between a cesium atomic clock and an ion trap clock explained, nor the fact that the ion trap quantum clock must be run in tandem with the more reliable cesium atomic clock, as I explained many posts ago.
I do not need the fact of the potential of the computers reference frame being irrelevant explained to me.
Nor do I need to be told that if one tapped into the fibre optic cable, that there would be different stages of gravity potential in the cable...  (That would be true of a vertically aligned cable, but the fact would have no bearing on a tick rate being transmitted through the cable. If it did then the reference frame of the computer would be highly relevant)
People accuse me of not reading their posts...  It would seem to me that they have not read mine.

Yes - the NIST results are relativity results...
...The upper clock is blue shifted.
Yes - the Pound Rebka results are Relativity results...
...The gamma ray arriving from the upper frame is blue shifted when it arrives in the lower frame.
NIST = upper frame blue shifted
Pound Rebka = lower frame blue shifted.
...
 .... - why don't you just answer the question:
...
Do the Pound Rebka maths take into account that the emitting source will be blue shifted at top of tower relative to the same emitting source, (or more pertinently, we can describe this as the receiver) at bottom of tower, or not?

However, Nilak has raised a question which is worthy of discussion:

If the comparator is midway between the clocks, what happens to the distance between two pulses as they travel downwards ? I think it should reduce (like redshifting), although the light is blueshifting. What do you think ?

Some background for those not following the previous thread:
By 2010 NIST had developed Al ion clocks which were both small and accurate https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/02/nists-second-quantum-logic-clock-based-aluminum-ion-now-worlds-most-precise
Far more accurate than the older Cesium fountain clocks:
"In addition to demonstrating that aluminum is now a better timekeeper than mercury, the latest results confirm that optical clocks are widening their lead—in some respects—over the NIST-F1 cesium fountain clock, the U.S. civilian time standard, which currently keeps time to within 1 second in about 100 million years."
Because of the increase accuracy and small size it was now possible to move atomic clocks within the lab, so Nilak, consider the following set up:

Two optical clocks were set up in adjacent laboratories one to remain fixed the other to be raised in height. Fibre optic carries the optical output to a comparator/computer. It would have been possible to shine the light from the raised clock to the comparator so we will also consider if this differs from the fibre optic. The fibre was used because a direct light path would need to be adjusted after the clock was raised but the fibre would not - in fact the fibre can be routed via ceiling, floor, whatever and its final approach to the comparator is irrelevant.

For analysis we will use Nilak's suggestion that the comparator/computer was inbetween the fixed clock and the final raised height of the 2nd clock. As both clock start the experiment at the lower position a direct light path from the either clock would be at a very shallow angle upwards, but all that matters is the vertical distance and hence gravitational potential difference which results in red shift of this light when measured in the frame of the comparator. The same is true of the light travelling through the fibre, no matter what its path it ends up at a higher potential, hence reduced KE, hence red shifted. We could also work this out by considering that time passes faster at this higher potential so in the frame of the comparator the light from the lower clock's frame will appear red shifted.

With the 2nd clock in its lower position, the 2 optical frequencies (clocks) were compared so that the fixed clock now provided a reference. The 2nd clock was then raised in height by 33cm and the optical frequencies again compared.
At this new height the raised clock is above the comparator so both a direct light path and light through a fibre would result in a blue shift when measured at the comparator - either measured as a gain in KE or by considering that clocks run slow at the lower potential hence will measure the arriving light as blue shifted.

However, the comparator is still using the fixed reference frequency against which the raised frequency is compared so giving a result for the frequency difference for a height shift of 33cm. As stated by the experimenters "When this shift is interpreted as a measurement of the change in height of the Al-Mg clock, the result of 37±15 cm agrees well with the known value of 33 cm." - obviously not great accuracy but good proof of concept with the new clocks.

So, we can see that light from a higher clock when measured in the frame of a lower clock (the frequency comparator in this case) will be seen to be blue shifted (higher frequency) and the NIST experiment confirms the findings of Pound Rebka.


Added note: if anyone has not studied relativity you need to know that for the clock which is moved in height, its frequency measured at its own height i.e. in its own frame, is constant and this is what it emits and which then arrives at the comparator and is measured at the frame of the comparator as being red or blue shifted.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can this relationship be derived between Schrodinger equation and Doppler shift?

« on: 15/10/2016 07:07:25 »

Ah - well I didn't actually post a link to the tuning fork version of Lissajous figures,

In your post #32 you give this link which has diagram of the setup https://prezi.com/k67jmml5iopb/applications-of-lissajous-figures/
2nd page.

Edit: thought Alan had answerd your q on shift but realised you might mean doppler rather than phase (remember there are 2 mirrors = 180x2)

Doppler at angle to moving surface need to adjust originating f by cos of angle. remeber tines of fork are going backwards and forwards and velocity varies as sine wave.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can this relationship be derived between Schrodinger equation and Doppler shift?

« on: 11/10/2016 11:00:22 »

As an aside...

memristor.... Curious devices, they seem to have disappeared from sight in the last 40 years.

Research is still continuing - the latest fads seem to be in emulating neurons, or displacing flash drives...
See: http://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/semiconductors/memory/mimicking-the-synapses-of-the-brain

17

New Theories / Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?

« on: 28/08/2016 01:18:50 »

I'm surprised that nobody picked up on my earlier comment:

"If the occupants of a rocket are observed to be moving about their tasks in slow motion due to time dilation, the rocket must also be moving in slow motion. If the rocket is moving in slow motion it cannot be travelling at the speed causing the time dilation.
There is no way to avoid this contradiction"

Yeah, that's just wrong. The motion of the rocket is stipulated, it is the physical events "within" the rocket that appear to be slowed. If the "rocket" was just a pocket watch, the entire watch would be moving at the stipulated speed, it is just the motion of the hands and gears of the watch that change.

Lol - if I say potato...aye!

To stipulate that objects experiencing speed are time dilated relative to the stationary frame, and to then say that only the occupants are experiencing the time dilation and that the rocket that is moving with the occupants does not experience the time dilation is both illogical and entirety contradictory.

You are making a very pertinent point. Well done!

18

New Theories / Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?

« on: 27/08/2016 20:44:55 »

I'm surprised that nobody picked up on my earlier comment:

"If the occupants of a rocket are observed to be moving about their tasks in slow motion due to time dilation, the rocket must also be moving in slow motion. If the rocket is moving in slow motion it cannot be travelling at the speed causing the time dilation.
There is no way to avoid this contradiction"

Yes that is a very interesting point. Maybe someone will address it once all the arguing stops.

19

New Theories / Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation

« on: 23/08/2016 01:22:32 »

Timey, if you are going to follow what I am going to say you need to read up on the imaginary unit, the complex plane and the unit circle. Let me know when you have done that.

20

New Theories / Re: An analysis of the de Broglie equation

« on: 23/08/2016 00:18:43 »

My model then adds a 3rd dimension of time dilation.  Vikki Ramsay gravitational time dilation that is not gravity potential related, but gravity field related.

Tantalising.

A potential-related dilation can only be observed by an observer at a different potential but a field-related  dilation would be apparent to an observer at the same potential but in a different field. So let's put a source on the surface of Mars, say, and an observer at a point in space where the earth's field has decreased to g ~ 4 m/s^2 - around 40,000 km.

It's a feasible experiment!