Mordred

Ive already told you that p in a closed angular momentum system is angular momentum not linear momentum. P can be either linear or angular but not both at the same time in a closed system. Your logic argument tries to use two simultaneous values for momentum p, simultaneous from one equation l=r×p. Why can you not understand this basic concept? Take a spinning wheel on a fixed axis, now locate the linear momentum? all motion in this case is angular not linear. So where is linear momentum p in this case? A momentum vector describes the actual motion not the forces involved. Those are force vectors.

Umm not possible under GR. Nor Newtonian physics for that matter. You will always have tidal forces with vertical and horizontal vector components with spherical bodies in particular. Add body rotation and it gets worse. Which is essentially how the pendulum reacts to for the angular momentum changes. Simple consequence of a centre of mass system.

lol let me fix that done lol

Well the Coriolis force is a tidal force. This is the force often attributed to whirlpool flow direction. So if our pendulum changed direction we are looking for a tidal acceleration in the opposite vector. This includes atmospheric pressure changes. Wiki covers how Corriolis force equates to the Foucalt and consequently the Allais pendulum. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Well it is a force along the plane of oscillation to the paraconical pendulum.

I wonder how long it will take before we look into the tidal acceleration with regards to the pendulum Lets see [latex]\Delta F=\frac{2GMmR}{r^3}[/latex] using this formula the moon has tidal acceleration at roughly [latex]1.12*10^{-6} m/s^2[/latex] the Sun has [latex]a_t=5.05*10^{-7}[/latex] when aligned during eclipse [latex]1.63*10^{-7} m/s^2[/latex] seems I'm already in the ballpark for orders of magnitude for the torque on the Allais experiment.

If its on a forum it can be answered by anyone

The other problem here is what direction of forces would be needed to cause a paraconical pendulum that was rotating in the clockwise position to rotate in the anticlockwise direction. Then maintain this rotation for several hours before returning to a clockwise direction. I cannot see how your DFA can possibly provide the right force conditions to generate that effect. Claiming your model can account for this is not showing it can do so. That is what I have been requesting you do show. After all we have not one but two changes to account clockwise to anticlockwise then several hours later the reverse. Each change in rotation must both be accounted for. Not just the first

All forms of energy or fields attribute to curvature. Mass being resistance to inertia change. Any binding force or other field interactions induce delays in signals or information exchange between particles. Higgs field interacts with only certain particles. w+, w-, z boson. Through their mediation quarks gain a mass term. Even if you isolate every field and still look individually at each fields interactions you will always have a energy/momentum stress tensor influence upon spacetime curvature. It does not matter what field you use. Each field has an effective equation of state that gives us a potential energy to kinetic energy relation. [latex]w=\frac{p}{\rho}[/latex] pressure is also a term in the stress tensor. (force per unit volume). I always found the expression " spacetime curvature is the sum of delays due to interparticle interactions" a handy way to make sense of time dilation itself as well as the curvature term. A handy method to make sense of that expression is under action. In this post for example I show the relations between e=mc^2 etc to force and action. The principle of least action also defines your null and spatial freefall geodesics for your curvature term. Apply the above for the standard model of particles including the Higgs field under action via [latex] \stackrel{Action}{\overbrace{\mathcal{L}}} \sim \stackrel{relativity}{\overbrace{\mathbb{R}}}- \stackrel{Maxwell}{\overbrace{1/4F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}}+\stackrel{Dirac}{\overbrace{i \overline{\psi}\gamma_\mu\psi}}+\stackrel{Higgs}{\overbrace{\mid D_\mu h\mid-V\mid h\mid}} +\stackrel{Yukawa-coupling}{\overbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}} [/latex] and voila you just incorporated every SM field into your spacetime curvature using action. Every field contributes in some fashion.

Feel free to follow the full chart ie hypothosesis to experiment. why do you think I kept asking which Allais effect dataset you are using to claim you solved it ? For example "Provide the angle and amount of variation of force, to induce the required torque on the panaconical pendulum "? Can your model at least answer this question? If not how can you state its due to DFA????? You have never done step 4 "experiment" which is fine if you wish to use someone elses experimental dataset. Ie Allais measurements. However when asked you could not provide an answer. How do you know what the pattern is, if you cannot answer my questions specifically on this pattern? I believe he is referring to acoustic gravity waves of our atmosphere when he was looking into the related articles. Though may or may not have realized the differences. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave There are competing papers for Allais effect that look into this possibility. They are already linked in this thread. There are numerous atmospheric studies during an eclipse that are related. equation 2 of this paper or study relates to numerous of the Allais effect papers. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ufa.cas.cz/html/climaero/Petra/AGWStructures.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiXtryTqN_UAhVOwWMKHX-tBAQQFggjMAE&usg=AFQjCNG0xvcqXdN8Ub3B1LL9CoMfpkiZGg which describes the acoustic-gravity wave propogation. Have no idea how generic it is, Atmospheric studies isn't my field. Been studying this in regards to this thread. Going through references related to the topic. Familiarizing with the competing models for Allais effect. (which obviously includes the differences in terminology and related formulas) http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/374/2077/20150222. From what I have studied as time allows, is that if you want a change in Earths gravity this is definitely one that counts. Lol its also a force via density changes that corresponds to the Allais experiment. (including direction of applied force, (Wang paper in the Ops references if I recall correct) China test. Found it a good coverage of accoustic gravity waves. Equation given in 40 and 41. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ecmwf.int/sites/default/files/elibrary/2002/16926-atmospheric-waves.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwim2duhtt_UAhVR92MKHaRiC-YQFggtMAQ&usg=AFQjCNG9BSGMOiG5WCZlVW9i2Cj5NrmlCw After I study this I'm going to reread the paper by Allais and his experiment. Hey Bjarne I bet ya didn't know the blue lines in your figures 17 to 20 are Rossby dispersion waves. Lol then again neither did I. edit: the last link definitely provides the needed details to understand the mathematics in the Yang paper. Which applies atmospheric gravity waves to the Allius experiment.

Well much like you my research on tbe Allais effect shows that it is questionable. As far as dark flow acceleration, well there is a far better methodology to test for its presence. Any form of acceleration upon a multiparticle system affects thermodynamic temperature. A DFA would be detectable via anistropy in the Planck dataset. Lol the original dataset. Caused a huge wave of "see evidence of DFA. However this turned out to be a calibration error in accounting for all the movements our solar undergoes. That being said its ok to speculate provided one learns how to properly model and proper science as they develop their models. The worse mistake is assuming a solution without checking if the solution is a viable via math. Hence why I stressed so much on detailing the particulars on the Measured Allais effects. You need measured results as a confirmation. Without that its nothing more than an assumption. That's precisely why I Asked which dataset was being used for comparison.

The reason I used space as opposed to spacetime is that the most common misconception is trying to apply some substance like property to volume. The typical question is "what is space or spacetime made of and how does it curve?. They do that to try to understand what curves, which is reflected in your time coordinate under 4d. Obviously there is no curvature under 3d Galilean. So I figured it was better to stress the 3d Galilean relativity first, then add the time component. After all the only change is the addition of the time coordinate. So if you define a 3d Space as volume filled with SM particles. Why would adding a time coordinate change what space is comprised of ? Obviously it doesn't Spacetime by definition is "any metric system describing space/volume with the addition of the time coordinate as a vector". Though at some point I will be rewriting the first post to include several of the suggestions on this thread.

Well as I didn't see any denial that this is about dark flow and not Allais effect. I will have to assume I am correct in my assessment. Particularly as you have not shown you can generate the specific anomoly on the pendulum. Swansont is already doing a good job pointing out all the math errors in your trig vector additions. Also pointing out what the orbits actually are. lmao

I had forgotten who did that experiment thanks for that

the moon would exert an opposing force on the weight depending on its position. Much like it affects the tides.

Yes there will be variations in weight, assuming an accurate enough scale.

Computational algorithms of Chess.

Thanks I missed that on my first read lol.

If the universe is shrinking. It would be getting hotter not colder over time. The thermodynamic gas laws still apply. This is actually the biggest evidence of an expanding universe. Everyone assumes it is the cosmological redshift. So they typically look at redefining how redshift works. Under what your describing above there would also be no CMB.

Another good analogy +1

mine too my life's purpose is self improvement. Knowledge being one aspect.

I'm sorry try as I might I'm really having trouble making sense of the rest of your post. You seem to be stating beyond a certain point we see reflections of our observable universe is that correct? I really can't make any sense on how your describing recessive velocity. Which is not an actual velocity but an observer dependant calculation based on Hubble law. "The greater the seperation distance, the greater the recessive velocity" [latex] v=H_o d[/latex]. Light has no issue with recessive velocity greater than c. Thats because at the location of the light beam heading towards us there is no recessive velocity. The greater than c value is from our location. Not the light beams current location. Use the formula above, what is the recessive velocity from the lead edge of the lightbeam to next distance increment the lightbeam could transverse in the next second? You will find light doesn't care about our measure of recessive velocity from Earth to its location as it doesn't apply to the lightbeams leading edge location. Just a little side note on the above formula [latex] H_o[/latex] is the Hubble value today not the past. Today it is roughly 70 km/s/Mpc it is actually decreasing since time of CMB. At z=1100 the rate of expansion per Mpc was roughly 1,555,948.1664 km/s/Mpc. based on using the 67.9km/s/Mpc value today given by the Planck 2013 dataset values. Let me know if anyone is interested in how I calculated that value lol. Anyways two points 1 Mpc apart would seperate faster in the past than that same distance would seperate today. The greater than c value doesn't apply till you have a separation distance of roughly 4400 Mpc to an observer. Yet once again 4400 Mpc would seperate faster in the past than today. So why do we state expansion is accelerating. It is because your measuring size of observable universe which keeps growing so you are multiplying a greater number of [latex]H_o[/latex] by a growing seperation distance.

Where is the duration of the effect, what is the value of [latex]\chi[/latex] Allias effect offset on the Airy precession. during each second of the eclipse. How are you isolating the Coriollis precession? How are you isolating the Foucalt precession? How does what you just posted apply to [latex]\chi[/latex] I think you have already answered my concern. You have absolutely no clue what is actually being described as the Allais effect. Instead you are trying to use that experiment to support your dark force acceleration without understanding the Allais experiment. Particularly since it specifically describes the effect on a pendulum.....which at no point in time do you describe. What your paper is really about is DFA not the Allais effect. Hence your conclusion in your paper. Which has very little to do with the specifics behind the Allais effect. Nice try on the cover up with your article title. "The Allais effect solved" when you don't even describe the Allais effect within your paper. For shame how dishonest. tell me did the statement "anistropy of space" That Allais refers to not have any meaning to you??? Or did you simply think that somehow supports your DFA model attempt? If so then tell me how your 35 Us/gal value gives a rotation of movement (angular momemtum not linear) in the Allais experiment. Which specifically describes the velocity of ROTATION along the plane of oscillation. Show how your model will generate the required rotation. of the Allais experiment. Call me a stick in the mud but when someone states " Allais effect solved" That is precisely what I expect to see. Not Allais effect might or might not have anything to do with dark flow. You advertised a solution. So deliver the solution. Show how dark flow generates the Allais effect.

Why did you post references on what I am already aware of. I asked you to apply those basic definitions to your theory. None of the above contradicts anything I've stated. I specifically used those examples to point out a key problem in how your post treats negative energy. Actually your comments on the above links just tell me you don't understand how negative energy is applied to those articles. in particular this comment. Every example you gave above has a positive energy value that under vector addition equates to negative energy in terms of pressure. The positive energy for for the cosmological constant (dark energy) for example is [latex]7.2*10^{-10} joules/metre^3[/latex] It is not a negative value, The negative pressure term arises from a specific formula called an equation of state. [latex]w=\frac{p}{\rho}[/latex] where w=-1 for the cosmological constant. Have you ever read the paper in the first link ? It applies a specific treatment for energy. [latex]E_r=\frac{\hbar^2k^2_r}{2m}[/latex] That paper is specifically describing variation of "effective mass" KEY WORD "Variation" https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.04055 Would you like me to explain the pressure relations in Allen Guths work? you will find it relates back to the first relation I posted. Let me ask you, Do you you understand the vector treatments on the three links you just provided? Ie I assign contraction energy as a positive vector (positive pressure.) An expansion I describe as a negative vector aka negative pressure. In electromagnetic under charge. I assign positive energy to positive charge which describes a direction of flow, negative flow of charge would be flow in the opposite direction. (charge is modelled as a vector) Much like the first link you provided.

Really I don't see those values you mentioned at all. Why do you think we mentioned showing them? However now I am curious what you are defining as the Alais effect if you are not using any data measuring the Allais effect. What exactly is the duration and characteristics of the Allais effect according to you if your not using any of the commonly known datasets measuring this effect? I've now posted several datasets asking if you can model those measured values. Your answer is no you can't so how how can you possibly claim to have solved the problem????? when you cannot show how your model leads to the measurements taken... Its amazing how you missed one major issue. Each paper I posted included an Allais effect graph. Each graph shows variation in values over time. Yet your paper only provides a single value. Why? and how is that even possible? Do you even understand the Allais effect??? Your paper and responses on this thread tells me no you don't understand the Allais effect. Rather amazing that you didn't even understand the papers you referenced. Though don't ask me why you would reference papers on dark flow (universe) when your paper is discussing the Allais effect on Earth. What did you do look for key words and figure that is good enough? Your conclusion in your paper doesn't even describe your findings in the paper. It literally has unsupported conclusions (unsupported as per your paper). Yippee so you give us a single value that supposedly explains a graph with varying values over time. Why would I need your paper to apply Newtons gravitational law, and a basic single force vector calculation when you cannot show how it produces any known dataset measuring the Allais effect? Alright fine you included tide data, which you used to calculate the 35 Us gal value you gave and stated this value represents the Allais effect. I as the reader isn't asking how much water is displaced. I as the reader is asking how much the pendulum moved yet your solution contains a value of water displacement. How does does that apply to the pendulum? How is that single value pertain to pendulum movements over time.? If I am A researcher looking for detailed information on the Allais effect. Your paper does me absolutely no good. I already know the formulas you applied. I already know the moon affects tides. You claim to predict where the effect occurs yet cannot simulate the dynamics of the effect. Sorry doesn't work for me. Fine lets skip over this. Prove to me you understand the experiment itself. Provide me the Airy effect formula that Maurice Allais refers to in his paper for a paraconical pendulum. Yes this formula exists. What type of velocity movement on the pendulum does this describe linear or rotational? Use your model and demostrate you can simulate the paraconical pendulum motion described by [latex]\omega=\Omega_{foucalt}+\Omega_{airy}(\frac{1}{2}sin(2\omega T+\chi)[/latex] which is the empirical pendulum motion described by Allais. If you cannot generate that empirical relation you have effectively proven you have NOT SOLVED the Allais effect.