[timey (OP)]

I'm happy to say that it turns out that I managed to learn enough maths to describe my idea of a 3rd time dilation...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=4s&v=BBND2wuf7Bg

[guest4091]

L wondered where you went. You made things interesting and motivated us to think more deeply about stuff.
Have you put your ideas in a paper that can be shared?

[timey (OP)]

Thank you so much for your kind words Phyti!
No I hadn't written a paper, but your post totally inspired me to do so.  However I am having issues submitting my paper.

I need to be endorsed by people within the community before I can submit, and as a self taught who is an outsider to physics, finding endorsers is difficult.

This is the paper that I wish to submit.

https://www.pdf.investintech.com/preview/3b253818-fa52-11e7-b174-0cc47a792c0a/index.html

I have posted the email they sent regarding endorsement in the hope that someone reading may be able to help...

help@arxiv.org
11:40 PM (21 minutes ago)

to me
(Vikki Ramsay should forward this email to someone who's registered as
an endorser for the gr-qc (General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology)
archive of arXiv.)

Vikki Ramsay requests your endorsement to submit an article to the gr-qc
section of arXiv. To tell us that you would (or would not) like to
endorse this person, please visit the following URL:

https://arxiv.org/auth/endorse?x=NTSKAM

If that URL does not work for you, please visit

http://arxiv.org/auth/endorse.php

and enter the following six-digit alphanumeric string:

Endorsement Code: NTSKAM

[jeffreyH]

I was looking for the maths. I didn't find any!

[timey (OP)]

This link to my mathematical description of the proposed spacetime structure is provided in the paper.

The mathematics for other proposed inverse type functions can be found in the author's papers via the links provided.

[timey (OP)]

Actually Jeff to say so, thanks for pointing that out.  Some of the links do not work via clicking on the paper itself I notice. Probably due to the PDF hoster, b/c if you then copy and paste the link into the search browser, it works fine.
Very annoying, I'll have to look into it.

[jeffreyH]

Then it isn't your maths but other people's. Where is your maths?

[timey (OP)]

Jeff, The YouTube video that I have posted in post 804 is my lecture containing my maths.  Here it is again...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the paper that I wish to submit:
https://www.pdf.investintech.com/preview/3b253818-fa52-11e7-b174-0cc47a792c0a/index.html
(If the links do not work by clicking on the paper, then they will if you copy and paste them to your browser)

I need to be endorsed by people within the community before I can submit my paper for peer review and publishing.  But as a self taught who is an outsider to physics, finding endorsers is difficult.

This is the email they sent me:
"
help@arxiv.org
11:40 PM (21 minutes ago)

to me
(Vikki Ramsay should forward this email to someone who's registered as an endorser for the gr-qc (General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology)
archive of arXiv.)

Vikki Ramsay requests your endorsement to submit an article to the gr-qc
section of arXiv. To tell us that you would (or would not) like to endorse this person, please visit the following URL:

https://arxiv.org/auth/endorse?x=NTSKAM

If that URL does not work for you, please visit

http://arxiv.org/auth/endorse.php

and enter the following six-digit alphanumeric string:

Endorsement Code: NTSKAM
"

I am posting this here in the hope that someone reading may be able to help me, or may know someone who might...

[Colin2B]

This link to my mathematical description of the proposed spacetime structure is provided in the paper.

I think @jeff was expecting to find the maths in the paper, which is the usual format, even if it is a graphical presentation of the maths.

In order to improve your chances of getting an endorsement, it would be worth looking at some of the papers on arxiv and using a similar layout, putting all references at the end and including your main arguments in the discussion section and a conclusions summary.

I was going to comment on the links problem but looks as though you are going to sort that.

A comment on page 6 where you write:
“placing 2 clocks in differing locations that share the same longitude (to equalize centripetal motion) and the same height from centre of earth (to equalize position in gravity field), but in locations of known significant difference in geological density”
You need to explain more about what you mean by “equalising the position in the gravity field” -  placing the clocks equal distance from the centre of earth doesn’t do that. The relationship between distance from earth centre and gravitational potential assumes an even distribution of mass, any local density will cause a variation of gravitational potential and the field gradient vector.
If near this “location of ... significant difference in ... density” the clock ticks faster then this implies that relative clock rate is not directly dependant on relative gravitational potential. This is a major conclusion and dwarfs any bounce theory, as such it should be clearly stated in the abstract and conclusions and the main body should make it clear why this occurs.

I wouldn’t bother showing examples of use of inverse functions. Anyone familiar with this area will understand how they are used, but will want to see you explain why and how you have used them in this particular case - this should be in main body.

Do you have a newer version that you have proof read? There are a number of typos etc.

Hope that’s helpful.

[timey (OP)]

Yes that is really helpful! (I'm so glad you cannot see the emotion registering on my face at this moment)

But this being quite important, just to check, is it your advice to use the actual workingout sheets used in my YouTube lecture and the descriptions thereof in short?  And then only mention other inverse functions in passing? (noting references at end).

...and yes, it is exactly the fact that "any local density will cause a variation of gravity potential and the field gradient vector" that is the basis for a further testing of gereral relativity to gain experimental evidence that a greater density of mass will cause a slower rate of time as Einstein's general relativity predicted, but your comments about making this clearer are taken on board.

And then maybe ditch section 3 altogether as an examination of bounce models, and just present my bounce model, (putting references at the end), and then split the considerations in the statement of predictiion into a conclusions section with the statement of prediction following as a simpe statement at end perhaps?

Typo's: My son did the spell check while converting my file to PDF for me, (I am on his old broken laptop that doesn't function well), he clearly did it in a hurry, I'll tell him  

[Colin2B]

But this being quite important, just to check, is it your advice to use the actual workingout sheets used in my YouTube lecture and the descriptions thereof in short? 

Yes, endorsers are busy people who dont want to sit through a lecture but will skim a paper skipping what is easily understood. You could include diagrams with enough description to explain what the methodology is.

And then only mention other inverse functions in passing? (noting references at end).

That depends. There is no point telling these people about the general principle or examples of use of inverse functions (they will know that), however, if someone has used inverse function in the same way as yourself and the method and conclusions support your case then that is relevant. What you need to do however is not just quote the link, you need to extract an explanation of the specific points as a summary then provide a reference number to the list of papers and links at the end.

...and yes, it is exactly the fact that "any local density will cause a variation of gravity potential and the field gradient vector" that is the basis for a further testing of gereral relativity to gain experimental evidence that a greater density of mass will cause a slower rate of time as Einstein's general relativity predicted, but your comments about making this clearer are taken on board.

Sorry, my post contained a typo due to typing quick notes, it should of course be “potential gradient vector”.or more correctly “the gradient vector field of the gravitational potential”.
As you know, current experiments show that lines of gravitational equipotential change in distance from earth centre in areas of higher density. That change is such that the line is further from earth centre, so relative to an area the same distance from earth centre, but over a lower density we would expect the clocks to run slower eg a clock over an iron deposit will tick slower relative to a clock over a hollow cave. We know that field and equipotential lines do not cross, so if your methodology predicts the opposite clock rate change then clearly clock rates do not vary with gravitational potential and you need to explain why this is so, and what you believe the true description should be.

And then maybe ditch section 3 altogether as an examination of bounce models, and just present my bounce model, (putting references at the end),

You could keep this as a discussion, either before your method or as an annex. However, you tend to just refer to these papers and leave the reader to go away and extract relevant points. It would be better if you summarised the key findings for each paper and again number in text to point to reference section. You need to make it easy for the reader to grasp the key points of your argument without having to do the leg work themselves. Think busy people, make it hard they will put it to one side for later ie never.

[timey (OP)]

Thanks for your advice.  I have taken on board all your comments, and am on it for a re-write.

I think I can include pics of my worksheets and adequately describe in writing w/o getting too long, all of my video up to and including page 5, perhaps utilising some highlighting system to differentiate which bits I'm writing about. Same with pages 8, 9, 10, & 11, although these will be more difficult and long winded.

...But in page 6 I outline a consideration concerning wavelength at the R scale, and a suggested mathematical manipulation that is based on the speed/distance/time formula, that is left open without finalising the notation.  As you know I am quite green with the maths.

So what I was wondering Colin, if you have the time. and the inclination of course, is if you might be able to advise me as to the means to notate that consideration properly?
This would cut a lot of text explanation from the paper if that was possible.
Page 6 starts at time 46.38, and lasts for a duration of 5 mins.

Thanks again for the advice!

[Colin2B]

[quote author=timey link=topic=69800.msg531508#msg531508 date=
So what I was wondering Colin, if you have the time. and the inclination of course, is if you might be able to advise me as to the means to notate that consideration properly?
[/quote]
I’m not going to have a lot of spare time for a while, we’ve had a close family death and I have a lot of arrangements to see to. When i surface I’ll have a look.

[timey (OP)]

Sorry for your loss Colin...
I'll look out for your return.

[jeffreyH]

I have now watched portions of the video. You complicate things in your posts with undecipherable language. The video made more sense. Not a lot of people will get what you are implying. I do. You need to clarify your ideas somewhat and make your language very precise. Carry on. You have a very profound idea.

[timey (OP)]

That you have said these words means a great deal to me Jeff.  Thank you.

And yes, my lack of adept usage regarding terminology is a problem (not just in physics) and my spelling is also atrocious.
I would be very happy if you would care to add any additional comment to Colin's regarding my re-write when I post it.

[jeffreyH]

To follow up on your Navier Stokes remarks.
https://www.comsol.com/multiphysics/navier-stokes-equations
Pipe flow is one of the things I worked on in hydrology. I could try to find some of the papers relating to Navier Stokes and give you my opinions.

[Colin2B]

I agree with Jeff, easier to see your ideas developing. I’ll try to watch video in odd moments, but it will be slow.
@jeffreyH  I’ve got to page 2 and i can see what @timey  is trying to do, but i don’t think partial derivative is best way to do vertical axis. That would give a gradient with +ve & -ve values which means -ve axis. I think a better representation would be a function eg t_d3=f(t_u,x_u) where subscript d3 is dilation 3, and sub u is undilated t&x ie baseline. What do you think?
Also, need to think of term for what @timey calls a vector, really a locus or plot.

[jeffreyH]

I wouldn't get into the technicalities of the maths yet. The best way to look at it is via a perfectly spherical mass with a perfectly spherical cavity at its centre. The will be a Lagrange point at the centre of mass which coincides with the centre of the cavity. If a smaller sphere rests at this point we can rotate the system around any axis that passes through the centre of mass and the symmetry will be maintained. Any movement away from the centre will move the object to the nearest interior surface of the cavity in a straight line geodesic. This then breaks the symmetry. Much like the symmetry breaking of the Higgs field. Although here the object acquires weight and not mass. So it is an analogy. The important point is that all parts of the field are directed inwards and focussed at the centre. The object has to gain potential energy to reach the Lagrange point. The value of this energy is the same no matter where on the inner cavity surface it starts from. This is an idealised system. The real universe is far less straight forward.

[Colin2B]

@jeffreyH You are obviously much further on in the video than i am. I see what you are thinking, do you consider distant mass of universe to be the outer shell?
My previous post was just some jottings of things that might cause a reader to reject the paper early on without reading through, rather than maths. Ill keep these and similar in a notes file for later editing .