4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?

  • 230 Replies
  • 10599 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2029
    • 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 »
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • 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.
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • 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.   
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • 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
  • ******
  • 1355
    • 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
  • *****
  • 4815
  • 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
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • 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
  • *****
  • 4815
  • 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!

helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • 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
  • *****
  • 4815
  • 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!
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • 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
  • ******
  • 1355
    • 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
  • *****
  • 4815
  • 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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • 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
  • *****
  • 4815
  • 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
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • 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
  • *****
  • 4815
  • 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). 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • 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
  • *****
  • 4815
  • 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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • 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
  • ******
  • 1355
    • 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
  • *****
  • 4815
  • 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 »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • 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
  • ******
  • 1355
    • 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
  • *****
  • 4815
  • 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 »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #75 on: 17/02/2016 00:17:52 »
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!

No. Get the physics sorted first. No numbers, just properties and dimensions. Nothing else makes sense or leads to undertanding.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #76 on: 17/02/2016 00:25:23 »
r1 = 1.4 units =
r2 = 2.8 units
r3 = 4.2 units
r4 = 5.6 units
r5 = 7 units
r6 = 8.4 units
r7 = 9.8 units
r8 = 11.2 units
r9 = 12.6 units
r10 = 14 units
r11 = 15.4 units
r12 = 16.8 units

If I can get the precise numbers then I can recompute, and the dimensions will make more sense (humour me? :). )

16.8 was a result off an A4 diagram, wadda you spect?

And, to say so, that is all the Bolttzman is at the moment.  There's room for improvement.

(In fact you've shown me how, so I'll do it myself.  Back at you tomorrow)
« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 00:37:35 by timey »

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #77 on: 17/02/2016 01:57:18 »
Aha... I think I've identified my mistake.  :)  You big hint dropper you!  Having a look at it now.  Why do I bother?  Because my diagram, you see... I've physically measured my idea on it, and it measures up.

Maths is a bit of a head twister though, must say.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #78 on: 17/02/2016 09:26:40 »
16.8 was a result off an A4 diagram, wadda you spect?
So you dream up some numbers, plot them on a graph, then read them off again. Unless the numbers derive from an experiment or a physical law, the result has no physical meaning.

Regarding Herr Boltzmann, the value of his constant depends on the means you use to define, not the dimensions of mass,length, time and temperature, but the units of measurement of these dimensions. So the number has no physical importance. Length and time are measured by the same means (it's a long story, but it just requires the assumption that c is constant) so meters and seconds are related, but  kilograms and kelvins are entirely arbitrary units and not related to any other dimension, so numerically  irrelevant.

Furthermore k is the property of a bounded ensemble, not the universe or a single particle, whereas a valid pronouncement about relativity must apply to anything and everything.

PLEASE, for the sake of your own sanity, forget the numbers and wrote down the physics. To paraphrase Roosevelt, when you have grabbed the problem by the wotsits, the numbers will follow.
« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 09:41:23 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2029
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #79 on: 17/02/2016 10:04:24 »
Ive been keeping out of this for a number of reasons, mainly Alan was asking the questions I wanted to ask, but too many people in a conversation and the thread becomes unclear.

I still don't understand why you used golden mean, was it from the parallax? Problem is as soon as you start inputting a number, be it a ratio or constant, you are in danger of generating all sorts of numbers which is why I said:
.... Just check over that you are not doing the equivalent of a circular argument when you talk about feeding results back in.

Remember, golden mean linked to fibonacci, linked to TE const, etc so all sorts of numbers can appear inc √2 and √5 etc

Hey, but you had fun doing it, yes? And found out lots of interesting thing on the way?
« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 10:06:43 by Colin2B »
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #80 on: 17/02/2016 11:32:54 »
ERM Nope!  I had this idea when reading a book 7 years ago.  'The trouble with physics' Lee Smolin.  Then I read a lot of books, (30 or so) and in reading these books, books written by physists, not only for the general public, but with physisist's in mind, I have not, since then, found any reason WHY my idea could not be a possibility.  And still haven't!

All any 'qualified' person can tell me is that 'Nope sorry, it just can't work that way'...  But NO-ONE can say why it wouldn't, just puts me down.

I then drew a 'to scale' geometrical diagram.  I have measured my diagram physically.  The speed of light takes the same 'time' to travel a parralax distance, as it does to travel it under the remit of 'slow time' in space by the remit of my notion and formula.  I have only been coming up with numbers since I measured my diagram.

The numbers have emerged from my diagram, that I came up with after a whole seven years 'after' I had the idea ... So, no Alan, I did not pull numbers out of my arse thankyou! 

Am I having Fun?  Its very interesting to think about things from different perpectives.  I enjoy that.  But no, it is really, really horrible to be completely discounted by people.  I can understand why some of the brilliant people of the past in physics had such a hard time in their lives, (Not that I think myself brilliant, but I'm not stupid either)

My diagram is producing constants, (close in numbers to the ones I thought) and I will continue to try and grasp mathematics until the day I die in order that I may get to the bottom of it.

Clearly, I will be doing this without the help I was seeking here.  Just been wasting my time I guess.  Not a mistake I'll be making again.







*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #81 on: 17/02/2016 12:07:33 »
Well there you go.
I have said it many times. Mathematics where it does not derive from real physical observations, is just bedtime stories designed to give you nice dreams.
Don't follow random number sequences because you sense a mathematical pattern. Instead find the physical geometry you are trying to describe, and the right numbers will come out of it.
Unless your numbers describe relations between physical processes, they are just numbers.
Good luck with it. You are obviously determined to show something.
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #82 on: 17/02/2016 13:00:51 »
Well there you go.
I have said it many times. Mathematics where it does not derive from real physical observations, is just bedtime stories designed to give you nice dreams.
Don't follow random number sequences because you sense a mathematical pattern. Instead find the physical geometry you are trying to describe, and the right numbers will come out of it.
Unless your numbers describe relations between physical processes, they are just numbers.
Good luck with it. You are obviously determined to show something.

Erm, physical geometry.  Geometrical diagram.  Am I missing something here?

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #83 on: 17/02/2016 13:01:36 »
But... before I depart, and on the basis that this forum has a 'Cambridge University' symbol attached to top of page... so I am expecting a 'definitive' answer on this...

When you measure a cesium atom in elevation, are you measuring what time is doing in the space the atom is located, or are you just measuring what time is doing for the atom located in that space?

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 573
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #84 on: 17/02/2016 13:41:23 »
If the laws of physics are the same in all references, the bond length for hydrogen gas is an absolute that will be the same in all references.

but it is known to stretch!

New Journal of Physics 5 (2003) 124.1124.8 (http://www.njp.org/)

"....The calculated frequency for the free H2 molecule is 4190 cm−1......"

I agree the hydrogen H2 molecule bond is not static, but will vibrate. However, once we define this vibrational distance range, this is invariant and will be the same in all references. If we see distance contraction, due to special relativity, and the vibrational distance range of H2 has shifted to say 1/2 normal size, due to distance contraction, but the H2 does not change phase, we are not looking at H2, but are seeing the impact of relativity on its energy signal.

To prove this to yourself since the laws of physics are the same in all reference, try to make H2 with double or half the bond length in the lab, while not changing phase from a molecular gas. It can't be done, except with a trick that will not be common to the universe.

Space-time and energy are complementary, in the sense, that both contain only the units of distance and time. But the H2 molecule contains mass, distance and time. You can't see a this 3-D affect, with only the 2-D filter of space-time. However, you can see 2-D affects, related to the 3-D, such as the energy profile.

Where the confusion is, can be explain below. Below is a 3-D image of a ball. It looks 3-D, due to the shadowing and highlights. However,  if you touch the computer screen, one can use another sense to feel that it is not really 3-D. It is a spatial image or illusion that can fool the eyes and brain.  What we infer from the energy signal in 2-D, due to relativity, can create an image of 3-D.  I call this a spatial illusion; 2.5-D. It is not 3-D (laws that are same in all references).


*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2029
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #85 on: 17/02/2016 13:52:06 »
But... before I depart, and on the basis that this forum has a 'Cambridge University' symbol attached to top of page... so I am expecting a 'definitive' answer on this...
This forum is hosted by TNS Cambridge University, but the forum is open to anyone and my understanding is that the University doesn't have a team of experts standing by to give definitive answers.
The quality of answer will depend on the knowledge of the person who answers. Alan, Evan , Chiral I have faith in, the box??
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #86 on: 17/02/2016 14:02:07 »
But... before I depart, and on the basis that this forum has a 'Cambridge University' symbol attached to top of page... so I am expecting a 'definitive' answer on this...
This forum is hosted by TNS Cambridge University, but the forum is open to anyone and my understanding is that the University doesn't have a team of experts standing by to give definitive answers.
The quality of answer will depend on the knowledge of the person who answers. Alan, Evan , Chiral I have faith in, the box??
Ha,ha,ha,ha,,,,,,,,,,,good one Colin, best laugh I've had for a long while...............
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2029
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #87 on: 17/02/2016 14:18:29 »
Sorry Ethos, I accidentally left you off the list - result of time pressure I assure you
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #88 on: 17/02/2016 15:27:30 »
But... before I depart, and on the basis that this forum has a 'Cambridge University' symbol attached to top of page... so I am expecting a 'definitive' answer on this...
This forum is hosted by TNS Cambridge University, but the forum is open to anyone and my understanding is that the University doesn't have a team of experts standing by to give definitive answers.
The quality of answer will depend on the knowledge of the person who answers. Alan, Evan , Chiral I have faith in, the box??

Yes.. I was hardly thinking there was a panel or anything.  I'm sure 3 of the people you mention might make attempt at reasonable answer.  But Chris is the one who is in contact with theoretical physists on the radio, and presumably comes into contact with physicists who do not comment upon this site...

Its an interesting question and forms the basis of the 'physics' of my idea.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #89 on: 17/02/2016 15:56:56 »
Sorry Ethos, I accidentally left you off the list - result of time pressure I assure you
Actually Colin, I can't hold a candle to either Alan, Evan, or Chiral. These three continue to impress me with their knowledge and the ability to express it in a manner that the reasonable individual can understand. As for that other fellow, the evidence is overwhelming.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #90 on: 17/02/2016 16:03:57 »
Sorry Ethos, I accidentally left you off the list - result of time pressure I assure you
I think you may have misinterpreted the reason for my laughter, what I was so amused about was your mentioning of Alan, Evan, and Chiral in the same sentence with "Thebox".

If that be the case, and others have misinterpreted my laughter, I would extend my apologies to Alan and Evan and also to Chiral. My hasty reply is my error and I accept the responsibility for that mistake.
« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 17:30:06 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #91 on: 17/02/2016 18:12:18 »
If I recall correctly, timey's famous diagram  is a graph of a parabola. This is indeed the path an object would take if launched from a much larger object at less than escape speed, and it is of passing interest to note that the horizontal axis can be time or distance if the gravitational field is effectively parallel.

That would possibly explain the source of the "r" numbers, and indeed their arithmetic relationships, but it is entirely Newtonian and nothing to do with general relativity.   
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4067
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #92 on: 17/02/2016 18:43:59 »
If I recall correctly, timey's famous diagram  is a graph of a parabola. This is indeed the path an object would take if launched from a much larger object at less than escape speed, and it is of passing interest to note that the horizontal axis can be time or distance if the gravitational field is effectively parallel.

That would possibly explain the source of the "r" numbers, and indeed their arithmetic relationships, but it is entirely Newtonian and nothing to do with general relativity.

And that is the crux of many wannabe's problems with relativity.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #93 on: 17/02/2016 19:23:08 »
If I recall correctly, timey's famous diagram  is a graph of a parabola. This is indeed the path an object would take if launched from a much larger object at less than escape speed, and it is of passing interest to note that the horizontal axis can be time or distance if the gravitational field is effectively parallel.

That would possibly explain the source of the "r" numbers, and indeed their arithmetic relationships, but it is entirely Newtonian and nothing to do with general relativity.

Now we are getting somewhere!  Exactly... Inverted Time Theory has got bog all to do with relativity.

Yes...it is Newtonian!  Except that unlike Newtonian mechanics it does explain the perihelion of mercury,

The reason why it explains the perihelion of mercury, is because the measurements of GR, and the measurements of ITT, take light, travelling at the speed of light, the exact same amount of 'time' to cover both the GR distance, and the revised shorter distance of ITT.

This quite simply is stating that the distance of GR is stretched, not as a distance, but as a time measurement of dilated time.  Reversing this concept, it states that a length contraction is instead a time contraction.

That light, in both of these instances, is travelling at the same speed, but in slower, or faster rates of time.  That because GR, on the basis of the fact of a caesium atom runs faster in elevation from a gravity field, states that time is running faster in space...  ITT states that time is only running faster for the atom, not the space it is located in.  This concept is reflected in the fact that lights frequency reduces in a reduced gravity field.

Simple stuff really!

Of course we do have to mention GR in the workings of ITT, but only as a working theory that works, and therefore any new concept definitely needs to be checked against it.

P.S.  A word of advice Jeff... I always check when I am making a statement about someone else, whether or not the same statement applies to myself!

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #94 on: 17/02/2016 22:36:13 »
Erm, physical geometry.  Geometrical diagram.  Am I missing something here?
Sorry timey.
By physical geometry I am referring to observations of reality and how an idea explains that. Rather an idea explaining some geometrical drawing on a piece of paper that is not shown to connect to reality, but just generates or not nice patterns.
Every part that you talk about has to show how it connects to the Universe not to mathematics.
If you believe that any of what you have put forward does that than the problem is mine as I have not been able to make the connections. Your numbers have to me seemed to contradict each other and I can not see how they refer to a real system.
I do not mean this comment to be discouraging. As I said I accept that the shortcomings may be mine in that I have not been able to see what you see.
Good luck with it and keep learning.
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #95 on: 17/02/2016 23:39:13 »
You say a representation of reality as if we already have one.  What we have is the universe we look at, and that is reality.  Then we have our explanation of how this reality works.  GR and Quantum are our best representations of our reality that we observe, but they fall a long way short of fully representing reality.

Not sure what there is to misunderstand about what I'm saying really.  It's pretty simple.  In looking at the gravity wave experiment, they expect the length of the poles to contract in a length contraction caused by a slight increase in gravity.  I'm saying that the poles are not contracting, it is the journey 'time' of the light that is measuring those poles that is contracting.

In that the world believes that an increase in gravity field slows time down, physics has taken on board the notion that an actual length of matter will contract, and reversing the concept, that a distance of space will dilate.  Looking at a significantly more changeable 'inverted' time dilation phenomenon, in addition to GR time dilation remaining as is, we can match a distance's dilation to a time dilation, and a length contraction to a time contraction.

I've only being 'doing' maths since just before Christmas.  These are the first maths I've 'ever' done.  If I had gone to school and could do maths, I wouldn't be seeking any help.
So...  I'd say it is highly logical that my maths will be a bit funky.  Thanks for re-confirming it though!
However, to say so, geometry is geometry is geometry.

Thanks for the good luck wishes, and in return, I urge you not to become discouraged yourself...  I hope you keep learning too!

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #96 on: 17/02/2016 23:56:59 »
  This concept is reflected in the fact that lights frequency reduces in a reduced gravity field.

Which, as I pointed out sometime ago, is exactly the opposite of what happens.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #97 on: 18/02/2016 00:08:22 »
  This concept is reflected in the fact that lights frequency reduces in a reduced gravity field.

Which, as I pointed out sometime ago, is exactly the opposite of what happens.

I must be totally misinterpreting this link then.  Lights frequency does not reduce in a weaker gravity field?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #98 on: 18/02/2016 19:05:56 »
I see your point. I've always considered redshift as resulting from the stronger field at the source (or en route) rather than the weaker field at the receptor. I think this is a more useful approach as it allows us to make inferences about the mass and density of the source.
« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 19:25:18 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: 4 a deeper discussion: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #99 on: 18/02/2016 21:42:59 »
Yes... I believe that is an entirely natural way to think about it considering cosmological considerations of mass, Hubble's law, and the focus of this being synonymous of expansion...  But as a piece of logic, it does not work.

This is why:  Light will redshift until the point of the least gravitational field between a receptor and the light source, and from this point on it will blueshift towards the greater gravitational field.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment

We can see that relativity has been tested, via redshift in the Pound Rebka experiment.  This was conducted from ground to the bell tower (?) and reversed, at Harvard.  The focus of this experiment was 'time' oriented.

Alan, for me, the most significant information in the 'gravitational redshift' link, of my last post, is this:

"This is a direct result of gravitational time dilation - as one moves away from a source of gravitational field, the rate at which time passes is increased relative to the case when one is near the source. As frequency is inverse of time (specifically, time required for completing one wave oscillation), frequency of the electromagnetic radiation is reduced in an area of a lower gravitational field (i.e., a higher gravitational potential). There is a corresponding reduction in energy when electromagnetic radiation is red-shifted, as given by Planck's relation, due to the electromagnetic radiation propagating in opposition to the gravitational gradient."

Removing light (massless) from the remit of gravitational potential.  Now, under the premiss of ITT, consider that time is 'reducing' in rate, as per the frequency of the light.  The fact of the ensemble of the current mathematics can be used to ascertain that the fact of lights frequency being inverse to the current remit of a quicker rate of time being significant.  And the length by which a wavelength becomes longer is also significant.

Now, if I were a mathematician, or indeed if someone can give me a lesson in scientific calculator usage, (square root 2 being blatantly obvious), I think I could (given some time) turn the current maths inside out to represent what I am trying to describe here with Inverted Time Theory.

Does that make sense?
« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 21:49:14 by timey »