« 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.
The following users thanked this post: timey