0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
The pendulum has a shorter swing being subject to less gravitational energy at elevation.
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.
16.8/12=1.4, which should actually equal 1.41421
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!
16.8 was a result off an A4 diagram, wadda you spect?
.... Just check over that you are not doing the equivalent of a circular argument when you talk about feeding results back in.
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.
Quote from: puppypower on 13/02/2016 12:41:30If 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) 124.1–124.8 (http://www.njp.org/) "....The calculated frequency for the free H2 molecule is 4190 cm−1......"
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... 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...
Quote from: timey on 17/02/2016 13:01:36But... 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??
Sorry Ethos, I accidentally left you off the list - result of time pressure I assure you
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.
Erm, physical geometry. Geometrical diagram. Am I missing something here?
This concept is reflected in the fact that lights frequency reduces in a reduced gravity field.
Quote from: timey on 17/02/2016 19:23:08 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.