0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

and that dimensional analysis subsequently has very little to say about these dimensionless quantities...

Quote from: timey on 03/08/2016 16:44:00 and that dimensional analysis subsequently has very little to say about these dimensionless quantities...Dimensional Analysis has everything to do with constructing these dimensionless numbers timey. Without the knowledge it takes to balance these equations, one can quite easily construct erroneous results. I'm sorry if you've taken my contributions as an insult, they were not meant to be insulting. Facts are; several of us have been more than patient concerning your views. Nevertheless, if I've offended you in any way, I apologize.

The fact remains that if you propose an equation involving mass, length and time, or any other physical parameters that involve them, if it doesn't balance, you have got it wrong. Simply writing a = b x c + d "because I say so" is fine for economics or sociology, or even climate "science", but it won't wash in physics.

No one is going to spend any time on an idea that you cannot state in precise terms that they can understand. The language of physics has a set structure and terminology for a very good reason. If the books you read didn't make this apparent then they didn't do a good job.

Consider a sine wave. Nothing to do with light or gravity. Forget those. If the wave length is constant we can move along the wave marking it off at regular intervals. Everything will be constant and cyclic. Now if we start again but this time continuously vary the intervals at which we mark off the wave using a function to determine the increase or decrease in the steps we can see how this can make it appear that something has changed. If we were blissfully unaware that our function existed then we may come to the conclusion that it was the wave that was changing.

That simply showed how the change in gravitational potential can affect wavelength and hence kinetic energy. Nothing to do with your concept. When you say "The length of a wavelength is not distance related" what exactly do you mean? How can you remove distance from a wave LENGTH calculation. If you had said inverted length contraction it would make more sense. It would however then be obvious how wrong you were. Muddying the waters by mixing up length and time causes much confusion for the reader.

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.

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?

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....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINThat 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....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINThat 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.

Rubbish!!!No one here has made attempt to calculate my model, nor, for the most part, made serious attempt to understand it...

Let me see. How many mathermaticians are famous. Partially famous in the UK Johnny Ball and Carole Vordeman spring to mind. Internationally you might add Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein. So mathematics is not much of a spectator sport. Normally you won't see mathematicians pushing themselves into the limelight. If you ask someone in Britain who won the Nobel prize for physics in 1966 they might look at you strangely. Ask them who scored the winning goal in the final of the world cup of the same year and you would get a much more enthusiastic response. So good luck in your search for that fame hungry calculator.

Quote from: timey on 06/08/2016 16:17:57Rubbish!!!No one here has made attempt to calculate my model, nor, for the most part, made serious attempt to understand it...No one here timey? I have made every effort to give you the benefit of the doubt. And yet, you make the statement that; "No one here has made attempt to calculate my model, nor, for the most part, made serious attempt to understand it."All my calculations have produced nothing in support of your theory, nevertheless, I have made an honest effort to understand your ideas and have even written you personal messages in an effort to encourage this thought experiment. Turn me over,......................I'm done!

Just so there is no ambiguity here is the definition of a mathematical inverse....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINIf we follow the definition then an inverse of time dilation has to involve an inverse of gamma which you yourself said was not what you meant. If that is the case then demonstrate the method you see that will produce the required effect without an inverse gamma function. The onus is not on us to prove you correct but on you to demonstrate that you are right.

Alan has posted workings, but he thinks that I think that m*g*h is a calculation of mass, not of potential energy for mass, so...

Here is the basis of your model G = F(X(q), Y(dq/dt), Z(-t)). Trust me I am a trained professional.

[quote authorb=timey link=topic=66831.msg494909#msg494909 date=1470498521]Alan has posted workings, but he thinks that I think that m*g*h is a calculation of mass, not of potential energy for mass, so...

Quote from: jeffreyH on 06/08/2016 17:58:14Here is the basis of your model G = F(X(q), Y(dq/dt), Z(-t)). Trust me I am a trained professional.As a someone who is telling you that they are not proficient in maths, do you not think that it is a bit of an insult to me that you do not explain your workings in words as well?

Quote from: timey on 06/08/2016 19:01:19Quote from: jeffreyH on 06/08/2016 17:58:14Here is the basis of your model G = F(X(q), Y(dq/dt), Z(-t)). Trust me I am a trained professional.As a someone who is telling you that they are not proficient in maths, do you not think that it is a bit of an insult to me that you do not explain your workings in words as well?The point is, no you wouldn't understand. Someone could tell you anything with a very plausible sounding explanation. That is a major drawback of your approach. The function above should be more correctly stated as G = F(X_{1}(q), X_{2}(dq/dt), X_{3}(-t)). We have parameters of position, velocity and inverted time. In that order from left to right. We can feed in a time reversed sequence describing an object with negative acceleration moving away from a large mass. We can then compare this with the object actually launched with the same initial velocity as a projective. This way we can check to see if the system is actually time reversible.

How do you know this has no bearing? Can you see where I am going with it? If so then be my guest. Tell me where I am heading.

So hedging your bets then. That is likely a wise move. Since you can't be exactly sure what my model entails.

Ok. My model is called "Inversion of the gravitational gradient in interstellar space".