JohnMnemonic

Hello! Quite some time has passed, since my last visit here and a lot of things changed... For example, it turned out, that I can in fact do some math and use it, to show you the only correct model of gravity and energy distribution in relative motion. I've spent around 6 weeks and wasted some 8 pages format a5 on calculations, while looking for the right formula - it took me so long, because I did such things for the first time in some 20 years or so and also, this was that part of physics, which as far as I remeber, I've always hated at most... I wonder, what then can explain all those generations of professional physicsts, who didn't even think about trying to calculate such things... If you really want to show me, that theoretical physicists aren't only just a bunch of overconfident snobs, then show me, that mainstream science can actually deal with the problem, which I present below: Here's a simple scenario: 4 objects with masses: m1=4, m2=1, m3=4, m4=1 Objects m1 and m3 move in relation to eachother at v=0,2c (1c=1d/1t) Distances between m1 and m2, just as between m3 to m4 are equal to 2d. Due to gravitational attraction m1 makes m2 to accelerate at a1=1 (where 1a=0,1d/t^2) and attraction between m3 and m4 is just as strong. Can you calculate the kinetic energies or acceleration (a2) for object m2 in relation to object m3 or for m3 in relation to m2? I can do it, but I had to find my own way... Frame of m1: Frame of m3: I will wait a day or two for you to make any attempt of solving this problem and then I will begin to show you, how to do it my way...

Please... Make him quiet...

...Learn how to use time-space diagrams and come back - then we can speak again... It's easy - it took me just one day...

Please... You're wasting our time... If you don't have anything to say about those time-space diagrams, then remain silent. I already know your opinion and, as I said eariler, I don't care about it. Let those with authority speak...

I know, that without gravity Universe wouldn't work. But something tells me, that if Standard Model would include MHD effect on the rotation of galaxies, we wouldn't need dark matter. Anyway, this is just another off-topic discussion But did I said anything about some aether... I'm simply using time-space diagrams - primary tool of scientists, who deal with relativity...

His post brings no value to the conversation. I would love to hear some opinion about those time-space diagrams... First he starts an off-topic conversation and then accuses me of making off-topic claims...

I don't care... Stop talking to me

Then stop talking about gravity

Tell this to people from nasa, who make pseudo-scientific models of magnetosphere. Gravity has no chance with electromagnetism... Looks to me, like a model of galaxy... since you're an amateur like me your opinion has no value to me

Interaction between magnetic fields is stronger. Plasma makes 99,9% of matter in Universe. Even in Solar System... https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-universe-is-99-9-plasma-1 http://theastronomist.fieldofscience.com/2010/09/magnetic-fields-in-cosmology.html You just stopped with your knowledge in the beginning of XX century So you asked wrong question, or didn't understand the answer Time dilation due to acceleration and gravity is definitive. Time dilation due to velocity is relative Of course... Nothing is at rest in the Universe... Of course - first you would need to understand, what they mean... Last step is to boost the coordinates to light and it will still remain valid.... But we need to change perspectives each time, to get valid result - because at speed of light c becomes relative. Where's the problem....? Oh, there's of course the time dilation due to Doppler's effect - but it is relative

Gravity and magnetohydrodynamics - to be specific... And this is beautyful... I've already did it, now I'm just presenting the results.. Nope. You can't be more wrong... Go ask someone smarter - maybe Markus Hanke Indirect evidence... I have direct evidences for many things... Of course, that photons don't have rest mass... Who said they have? And what you are going to do, to stop me...? Here's time-space diagram for the perspective of yellow sphere: I just skewed (boosted) the coordinates, leaving the c constant - and it is still valid... Sorry - I need to change the orientation of paths Now it is good: I have to fix the perspective of red sphere and cross the paths in the middle of timeline... Like this... Funny - I don't see no problem here... I'm just skewing the perspectives, while keeping c constant and it works perfectly in every case...

So...? Maybe you don't know it yet, but the observable Universe in the macro-scale is a neural network... Universe works and looks like a giant brain... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.00816.pdf Classifying the Large Scale Structure of the Universe with Deep Neural Networks ABSTRACT We present the first application of deep neural networks to the semantic segmentation of cosmological filaments and walls in the Large Scale Structure of the Universe. Our results are based on a deep Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) with a U-Net architecture trained using an existing state-of-the-art manually-guided segmentation method. We successfully trained an tested an U-Net with a Voronoi model and an N-body simulation. The predicted segmentation masks from the Voronoi model have a Dice coefficient of 0.95 and 0.97 for filaments and mask respectively. The predicted segmentation masks from the N-body simulation have a Dice coefficient of 0.78 and 0.72 for walls and filaments respectively. The relatively lower Dice coefficient in the filament mask is the result of filaments that were predicted by the U-Net model but were not present in the original segmentation mask. Our results show that for a well-defined dataset such as the Voronoi model the UNet has excellent performance. In the case of the N-body dataset the U-Net produced a filament mask of higher quality than the segmentation mask obtained from a stateof-the art method. The U-Net performs better than the method used to train it, being able to find even the tenuous filaments that the manually-guided segmentation failed to identify. The U-Net presented here can process a 5123 volume in a few minutes and without the need of complex pre-processing. Deep CNN have great potential as an efficient and accurate analysis tool for the next generation large-volume computer N-body simulations and galaxy surveys. Haha! The worst nightmare of scientists comes true - SCIENCE PROVES GOD... Ok, sorry... I'm still working on it... My next step will be to use the time-space diagram to represent this scenario: Using SR and my own concept of relativity and see, which will get me valid results for all 3 observers... I know already the answer, but if you want, you can make the calculations by yourself... Funny... Somehow you've missed THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of my previous response: The rest of your post has no scientific value for me, so I will simply ignore it... ********************** Of course - just as there no such thing, as stationary observer, as everything is in motion - but it doesn't stop us from using it in calculations Thanks! As always - you're the only one who speaks with science. I know, that we don't observe stationary photons. We don't observe many other things - like dark matter or black holes... This is why, it is called theoretical science - you make a claim and try to prove, that it is valid. If I will get valid results for the perspective of stationary light, then what's the problem? Ahh - it will destroy half of the Standard Model... Well, sorry... Ok, I start from the perspective of red sphere... Next step is to add the event in the middle of timeline...

I will let you know, when I finish - right now I'm still putting the pieces together... It would be nice however, if someone would try to discuss my claims, using actual science, instead of private opinions and impessions... Bye...

Yes, yes yes... I don't care... Of course - it was verified long time ago, that SR doesn't work for the frame of a photon... Don't worry - I already know, how to fill this gap... Nope - it is the most significant frame of reference, if we want to get a model of relativity which is valid in ALL frames And only then you will believe, that I was right? Listen to yourself - you accept things, only when someone with authority tells you, that you have to accept them... But I won't judge you... And what, if I will write a paper, which will be peer-reviewed and published on the internet - just as the papers, which I tried to show you http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.838.5669&rep=rep1&type=pdf Of course, you will simply treat it as some nonsensical claims, without even reading the title, until someone with authority won't tell you, that you have to accept those claims without any question - and then you will start to treat them as Absolute Truth... Sad.... Then maybe you should show my wild arse guesses and baseless hypotheticals to someone with authority and ask about his opinion... I just hope, than in the difference to you, people, with authority can use their own brains... Ok ok ok - you won. Look how smart you are... It is a theory, or it is a law, or it is a discipline - call it as you like. I don't care about this baseless argument anyway... I'm trying to make something important and I won't waste anymore time on some stupid word games... Sure... So what kind of time dilation is according to you caused by velocity - relative or definitive one? In the case of gravity, it's the definitive one... Wow! In a single post, you gave four or five different versions of the same "argument", which for me doesn't have no value anyway... Do you think, that if you will keep repeating, that SR and GR are verified, validated and accepted, I will suddenly change my mind and admit how stupid I was, trying to use my own brain? Sorry, but I'm not you...

Ok, maybe it was invented for different purpose - it doesn't actually matters, as in SR it is being used, to maintain the constant speed of light in all frames, which are in relative motion (at velocities, lower than c). I promise, that I will read that book, but at this moment I don't need to learn about it's history, to use it for time-space diagrams... I don't even need to learn the equations, as I can simply use an online calculator... http://www.trell.org/div/minkowski.html I HAVE A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ALL OF YOU: Is there a symmetry in relativity Doppler's effect? Will I observe the same distortion of a sound wave, for a source, passing next to stationary me and for me passing next to a stationary source? This has significant meaning for the model of relativity, which I'm making right now... If there wouldn't be no symmetry in relativity Doppler's effect, then we would be able to learn the definitive velocity of a moving source, by looking at the relation between it's motion and the waves, which it emits... Ok - I start to look for the answer by myself... I will tell you, if I find something Found it - according to mainstream science, Doppler's effect is asymmetric for the sound waves and symmetric for the light... Funny... But after spending a minute to think about it, it started to make sense for me - It's all because the crazy constant c There's a significant difference between the light and other waves - it's the medium, in which waves propagate. A wave moving in a bowl of water is a nice example, which shows, how tricky is the light... If we accelerate the bowl, waves on the water surface will behave, like in the case of a stationary source of light. But if the wave propagates in stationary water, it will behave like source of light in motion. Most funny is the fact, that in the case of light, instead of accelerating the medium, we just have to change the point of view... How not to love relativity and the constant c? It makes things such more complicated... Is time the medium for light...? <<<just joking (or maybe I'm not... I'm not sure...) Anyway, if there wouldn't be no symmetry of relativity Doppler's effect for the light, I would have to change my mind and start to claim, that the rate of REAL time flow would indeed depend on the constant velocity of a frame. Luckily, it seems, that twins are still aging at the same rate... Phew!