0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_(mathematics)#/searchIf 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".