0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Quote from: timey on 05/08/2016 00:57:24Again I will point out the obvious, in that if I were a mathematician, I wouldn't be requiring a mathematicians input!......................I do not understand Alan, given the nature of my request, that you keep insisting that 'I' produce the mathematics and dimensional analysis for the concepts of this model that I am proposing.As I have said many times, the mathematics is trivial and well within the capability of anyone who knows what multiply and divide mean - as I am sure you do - and has a "square root" button opn a calculator - as I am pretty sure you have. The underlying problem is that you keep trying to describe the physics in terms of equations or even sentences that have no dimensional balance and therefore no physical reality. Since dimensional analysis is even easier than arithmetic (it doesn't involve adding or subtracting!) I really commend it to you.What unobserved entities are required by GR?

Again I will point out the obvious, in that if I were a mathematician, I wouldn't be requiring a mathematicians input!......................I do not understand Alan, given the nature of my request, that you keep insisting that 'I' produce the mathematics and dimensional analysis for the concepts of this model that I am proposing.

Ethos - I composed this post in answer to your post from last night that has now disappeared or you have deleted it. You were mentioning the importance of dimensions again and your thoughts on a cyclic model:In analysing the proposed additional dimension of an inverted gravitational time dilation, it is crucial that one understand that the resulting physics of our universe are quite different...The only reason that this can possibly be viable is if these physics are the exact opposite to that which is currently described.

Quote from: timey on 05/08/2016 13:03:07Ethos - I composed this post in answer to your post from last night that has now disappeared or you have deleted it. You were mentioning the importance of dimensions again and your thoughts on a cyclic model:In analysing the proposed additional dimension of an inverted gravitational time dilation, it is crucial that one understand that the resulting physics of our universe are quite different...The only reason that this can possibly be viable is if these physics are the exact opposite to that which is currently described.I deleted that post hoping not to offend or frustrate you any further timey. It's quite apparent that you've heard enough about Dimensional Analysis so maybe we should start over and settle a few things before we get into the Math. Because frankly, the math doesn't work and that's the very reason we can't help you advance your theory starting from that position. Bare with me timey, I'm interested in your theory but, so far, I have failed to establish a sound mathematical foundation upon which to support these ideas. For this reason, I'm going to ask you to help us with a few problems that your theory currently presents. Firstly: Tell us briefly how we can get around the current accelerated universal expansion we presently observe. Because your theory suggests that instead of expanding, the universe is contracting. And if you can, give us all your supporting evidence that suggests such a contraction. Without this critical evidence, I'm afraid your theory has little chance of success.

I have at least studied equestrianism to the point of knowing which bit of a horse is the front*, and I've never shied away from learning more. Indeed if I had any intention of driving a carriage, I'd happily listen to you and at least learn what the commands mean. Simply repeating "I can't do it" won't get the bugger off the runway, let alone back down again, so I would take the trouble to learn about fetlocks and aileron drag, or whatever it is that makes them go round corners, before offering the world a whole new perspective on the Grand National based on the Reverse Horse Principle, and saying "it's just a matter of counting their legs, or maybe nosebags, which I can't do".The most general object of physics is to develop and refine mathematical models of the universe. It is very difficult to do this if the person presenting the model refuses to discuss it in terms of mathematics or physics. But it is fun to try.*it's the bit that bites. Or maybe farts. I have read the book, and the difference is just a matter of sign convention, surely.

What we observe is the phenomenon of red shift.

Quote from: timey on 05/08/2016 18:50:04What we observe is the phenomenon of red shift.Yes, this is the current explanation for accelerated expansion. And, BTW, thanks for the link. It was interesting although several of the comments related to it were less than agreeable. That is nevertheless an expected reaction when unconventional ideas are submitted. Concerning the issue of red shift. Several ideas have been offered for this phenomenon other than expansion. One being what is called "tired light". Not sure if you are familiar with the term but in essence, it blames the red shift on a theory that light looses some of it's energy over vast distances of travel. I'm not particularly a fan of this explanation myself. There is also another question for us to consider timey. We know that if expansion is the culprit, red shift would indeed be one of the observed results. But for the sake of argument, I'll grant you that expansion "might not" be the true cause. So now, here is my next question:If expansion can result in an observed red shift, wouldn't contraction result in a blue shift? And if, as your theory suggests, our universe is contracting, wouldn't we typically see a blue shift? And again, for the sake of argument, if the universe is indeed contracting, why doesn't a blue shift become apparent?

Smolin's book should have been titled "The trouble with string theory" since physics is doing a fine job everywhere else. There may not be a reconciliation between general relativity and quantum mechanics but that is unlikely to be brought about by string theory.

OK Let's have a look at one of the topics I am currently studying as a result of reading up on advanced calculus. Time evolution and propagation operators. It is to do with Hamiltonian mechanics.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_evolutionThat is the level I am now at. Have a look at the page. Take a look at the notation. It has taken me a few years of hard slog to be able to understand what it means. Starting with a revision of algebra and just continual reading and learning. Now I would say that is studying physics.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 06/08/2016 13:26:20OK Let's have a look at one of the topics I am currently studying as a result of reading up on advanced calculus. Time evolution and propagation operators. It is to do with Hamiltonian mechanics.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_evolutionThat is the level I am now at. Have a look at the page. Take a look at the notation. It has taken me a few years of hard slog to be able to understand what it means. Starting with a revision of algebra and just continual reading and learning. Now I would say that is studying physics.Well now you've finished telling us why you are so much more qualified than I to come up with an interesting alternative idea regarding physics, I'd like to get back to the fact that I'm requiring a qualified and confident mathematician to calculate the idea that I have come up with.Thank you...So you haven't read "The Trouble with Physics" then?

You could be right in your general assumption but wrong in all the reasons you put forward to explain it. How would you know? If I constructed a mathematical model that showed a difference in gravitational potential in inter stellar space contrary to both general relativity and your own hypothesis who would the work belong to? If the model made predictions but was not the result of your ideas what then? How would you go about contesting it?

Quote from: jeffreyH on 06/08/2016 15:01:55You could be right in your general assumption but wrong in all the reasons you put forward to explain it. How would you know? If I constructed a mathematical model that showed a difference in gravitational potential in inter stellar space contrary to both general relativity and your own hypothesis who would the work belong to? If the model made predictions but was not the result of your ideas what then? How would you go about contesting it?If there is an inverted time gravitational time dilation, this leads to the cyclic universe that I have described in words.I don't need a mathematical model to show me that this is the case, and although I understand that most peoples brains would need the maths to be able to visualise what I am talking about, I don't, in much the same way that I don't need to see musical notation in order to replicate a tune.If I am correct, then no one would be able to say this was their idea. It's written in stone on forums and websites and email communications that I am the originator of this idea.If I am correct in this idea, the person who is responsible for calculating the fact would be world famous for their contribution. Why would they contest mine?

Quote from: timey on 06/08/2016 15:49:12Quote from: jeffreyH on 06/08/2016 15:01:55You could be right in your general assumption but wrong in all the reasons you put forward to explain it. How would you know? If I constructed a mathematical model that showed a difference in gravitational potential in inter stellar space contrary to both general relativity and your own hypothesis who would the work belong to? If the model made predictions but was not the result of your ideas what then? How would you go about contesting it?If there is an inverted time gravitational time dilation, this leads to the cyclic universe that I have described in words.I don't need a mathematical model to show me that this is the case, and although I understand that most peoples brains would need the maths to be able to visualise what I am talking about, I don't, in much the same way that I don't need to see musical notation in order to replicate a tune.If I am correct, then no one would be able to say this was their idea. It's written in stone on forums and websites and email communications that I am the originator of this idea.If I am correct in this idea, the person who is responsible for calculating the fact would be world famous for their contribution. Why would they contest mine?Because it doesn't compute. Your mental model is not mathematically rigorous. That is what various people have been trying to tell you.