[Ethos_]

Rubbish!!!

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!

[timey]

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.

Says the man who passes comment on a book he hasn't read!

[timey]

Rubbish!!!

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!

I'm sorry Ethos but you have not posted any of your workings, nor pm'd me any workings.

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...

What can I say?

[timey]

Just so there is no ambiguity here is the definition of a mathematical inverse.

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

If 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.

I am quite simply posting on this forum in order to meet a mathematician who will listen, understand what I'm saying and calculate the model.

Period!

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I listened. I understood what you were saying. It didn't work.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

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

[alancalverd]

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...

Please don't pretend that what you wrote is what I think. It's a quick way to lose a friend and really piss off a potential collaborator.

[timey]

Here 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?

[timey]

[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...

Please don't pretend that what you wrote is what I think. It's a quick way to lose a friend and really piss off a potential collaborator.
[/quote]Alan, you said earlier this thread that I had said that m*g*h is for calculating mass.  I do nor know what you think unless you tell me.

It is not my intention to insult anyone, I just do not have the time for idol banter.  I've told you my situation, I'm literally existing in the dark ages here, no mod cons, often going hungry and on the verge of having to give up everything I've worked for.  I'm not having a good time, OK.  No enjoying the sunshine, as you have suggested, for me under these circumstances...

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Here 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(X₁(q), X₂(dq/dt), X₃(-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.

[timey]

Here 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(X₁(q), X₂(dq/dt), X₃(-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.

If you are calculating a reversal of the process you describe, ie: any type of reversal of time, then this has as much bearing on what I have been describing as your notion of calculating my model by reversing the gamma. ie: none wot-so-ever.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Ok. So do you want to state publicly that you have no interest now or in the future in the model I am intending to propose.

[timey]

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.

Look Jeff - the only reason I'm calling it inverted gravitational time dilation is because it does the opposite, or almost the opposite, to GR gravitational time dilation in the gravity field.

There is no reversal of any existing dimension.  However there are many ways to skin a cat, I'll admit, and escape velocity does have a part to play in the concept, because an outward trajectory would be moving through slower time, but a trajectory moving towards mass would experience the opposite, so free fall and inertia would constitute the reversal of escape velocity.

Your right, I have no idea what you are driving towards with your description of a time sequence being time reversed, but if you care to tell me, I'm all ears.

P.S. I don't know what the heck you mean by your subsequent post, but when I said on the verve of having to give up, I was referring to my business, my horses and my other financial plans, due to having been treated very badly by people of social responsibility and position who really should have behaved better.  Not giving up on my 8 years development of my idea.  OK.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

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

[timey]

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

I'm not into this school yard crapola.  Its trite!

Any one is always welcome to come up with their own model.  When they explain their model in words, which all serious physicists do, I'll always give it a fair read.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

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

[timey]

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

Can I speak to a grown up now please

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Let's consider the wavelength of a hypothetical force carrier of the gravitational field. Its wavelength is much longer than that of the photon. The effect of gravitation on the wavelength of light could result in the opposite effect on the wavelength of the graviton. This blue shift would be far less noticeable due to the much longer wavelength. Energy would increase over time but would only be noticeable over very long distances where the force carriers interact with particles in deep space during this interval. This could well have implications for the cosmological constant and both dark matter and energy. How does it sound so far?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Of course the increasing energy of the gravitational field with radial distance from the centre of a galaxy implies an increase in orbital velocity with increasing radial distance.