seasnake

thanks for the help, am almost ready to post my newest spreadsheet research... it should catch eveyrone's attention, hopefully anyway

No, your elevator example is very flawed. When an elevator drops and a person is inside of it they don't float in the middle of it, they either stay on the floor or slam up against the ceiling and remain there until the elevator box crashes. As to not being able to make gravity balance inside of a box, I would not say that is impossible, you can levitate stuff with magnets and so it is at least theoretically possible to create such a situation to a decent extent. The problem with the Lagrange point locations for clocks is that one would have to be able to check them all at the same time using a method that won't dilute their readings. When you move them into position and you remove them from their points to read them all at the same location at the same time, the moving of them likely would be responsible for any deviations they have.

It would float if we constructed the vaccuum so it would float. I know an object in a vaccuum would still fall towards gravity, but I also know that if gravity were equally applied on all areas on the outside of the vaccuum that the object would float in the middle of all the gravital forces, and so that is what I want to happen in my scenerio. If the object did not float as such the clocks would surely all read differently by the exertion of gravitational force. light doesn't seem to actually have speed at all then, rather it is a medium (or rather a variance or a disturbance) and what we measure the speed of light to be would merely be our speed of observation... keep in mind that impulses to our brains are measured at a constant rate of speed so our observation rate should subsequently also be constant

because the watch in the vaccuum in my statement floats in the center of the vaccuum which means that when it is moved closer and further away from the mass of the Earth it is unaffected by the pull of the Earth as the vaccuum container itself adjusts for such elevation changes. The floating watch in the container would be at a lagrangian type of point and would not be subject to outside speed and distance from gravity changes, as such it would be measuring true time. That is to say if everyone had such a watch in such a container all those watches should read the same time as each other no matter where their containers were. Are you saying that under realtivity I would measure lightspeed as my speed + the difference between lightspeed and my speed? I keep having trouble on that point cause of poorly written and subsequently hard to understand statements in such regard. I also have trouble understanding equations I read about cause the variables aren't well defined and restraints are often not listed. From what I have been reading it sounded more like no matter how fast I travel my speed plus lightspeed would be the the calculated speed of light.

Say it is Monday and you and I want to watch a tv show at my house at 7:00 P.M. on Friday that is said to come on that day at that time in that location. Say also we each wear a watch and we set them to be in perfect synch with each other. Now lets say I stay home from Monday to Friday and do relatively nothing, while you on the other hand fly all over the world so that the time on your watch reads I guess faster than mine? So that when you are at my house at 7:00 P.M. your watch reads 5:00 P.M. Cause your time is two hours sooner than my time, does that mean you will have to wait two hours later to watch the same program as I do? Does it mean that the Earth made less rotations for you than it did for me? Does it mean the way in which we measure time is affected not by time dilution but rather by us having watches that are prone to gravitational or other forces simply making the component parts of your watch run slower than mine? I mean if you had carried your watch in a vaccuum the entire time you were away where that watch floated in the middle of the vaccuum therefore being not at all affected by outside gravity, and at the same time you carried it you wore another watch on your wrist, would the watches read differently if they originally were time synchronized and if they did, when you got to my place at 7:00 p.m on Friday which one of those two watches do you think would best match my time? I've been reading up on time dilation and I read that the faster you travel the slower your clock rate will be in respect to those who remained relatively stationary. Now when I think about that I think wow, so if I were to travel at the speed of light and then communicate with whomever I am traveling to that I am traveling to them and I am X distance away by the time I get to my friends they will have calculated that somehow I managed to reach them faster than light could travel as their time would have moved slower than my time and at my time I traveled at the speed of light.

I can find all types of articles yet no data that I ever can seem to use. What I am looking for is data concerning differing clock times based upon various variables from experimental studies. If anyone has any links to such data, I'd appreciate them. lol, I'm about to start conducting my own time discrepancy experiements due to a complete lack of useful data.

trying to figure out how equations fit together and trying to figure out a usefulness is definately too different things my work displays the current linear characteristics of mass as examined from the locational distance from the center point of gravity between masses at a given moment in time, but that largely isn't helpful for anything other than seeing what linear equations equal other linear equations.. interesting but not sure of what value yet. not sure if I can write a new theory up from it or not

Thanks for explaining this out, I'm rapidly increasing my knowledge on what has to happen in both my model and my spreadsheet... I've written down the formulas of general and special relativity and relating equations and now I am in the process of reading texts written by many people who try to explain why everything was calculated as it was in terms of the flow of time in terms of things along lines of the twin paradox. Once I know how everything needs to equate and be viewed in relationship the speed of light, gravital effects, and time I should be able to see how structure will fare and hopefully adjust accordingly until everything does what it should. Gah, that is going to be fun, well for me it will be, lol. I guess I won't have a full theory of anything until it is all done as whatever theory I do have will be deriven. I wonder how my formulas will compare to Einstein's, not really sure but I believe mine will be much simplier to calculate. It is however reassuring that there are several problems pointed out with Einstein's theory of relativity in various remarks and footnotes when going over his equations.

If the adjustment for elevation is no different than the adjustment for gravity, then I have to assume the measurement of the second assumes vaccuum only conditions, which would explain why atmospheric conditions are problematic as atmospheric conditions aren't exactly vaccuum conditions. Einstein's Field Equations do factor in pressure, but I still think pressure should be factored into the definition of a second rather than creating errors that physics equations need to try and formulate for in order for them to be diminished as much as possible. I don't understand something though, if elevation was used to adjust for gravity and if changes in gravitational mass affects the length of the duration of a second in a predictable way, why hasn't anyone yet adjusted the definition of the second to account for that type of change? In any case, I'm hoping to spend tomorrow playing around with equations in my spreadsheet instead of trying to research everything like I've been doing today. I at least have a decent idea of what I am trying to get to work and hopefully be able to prove. I think it has helped me a lot discussing the measurement of the second.

I think that atmospheric conditions that electronics are susceptible to such as temperature and humidity changes has much to do with changes in compression the same type of compressional changes caused by changes in density that elevation adjusts for. Now I admit that changes in atmospheric conditions might be hard to adjust for and it would likely be easier to adjust for elevations and then say any deviations are due to localized puressure or density changes. I would still however expect the time each cycle takes to be shortened/lengthened by the amount of centralized gravity that everything is being timed from. I mean if somehow magically the Earth stayed the same size but doubled its mass and gravital pull, wouldn't the length of a second change to match that increase in gravitational pressure? That is what I really was on about before when I was talking about foot sizes, that I thought that the measure of a second would be non-compatible if on say other planets or measuring stuff between different gravity systems. Under such circumstances I would think we would have to adjust for density or gravital pressure. That isn't to say that adjusting everything through elevation as well as gravity between objects wouldn't work well. Maybe if I can figure out how to compare my great clock equationally even greater local precision can't be obtained, that is the fun part of trying to figure stuff out, right or wrong its still entertaining. <BR><BR>It looks a lot like Einstein's Field Equations try to compensate for pressure changes, where an issue is that there are lots of problems in the equations and their variables as pointed out in the footnotes which are present when reading. I see some of the equations using a variable that Einstein abandoned himself, the cosmologial constant that supposedly was dug up and became popular again in the 1990's. No one seems to agree on which variable expressions should be positive or negative either. I'm just really wondering if all of these formulas and calculations are necessary, that is if there is a better way to measure a second. Intuitively if a measuring variable is incorrect you could still adjust all equations to compensate for the definition so that equational figures will be approximately close to those actually observed, but the calculations would be very complex and cumbersome and likely still have problems in different circumstances. In any case, there seems to be a plethora of identified problems, and I think if I were a betting man I would be laying double down on the idea that the definition of a second should be examined much closer in equational effect context (if the variable of a second is equated differently do errors/discrepancies increase or diminish and also do cumbersome equtions become simplified). Side note - I definitely love the Correspondence Principle as that principle should allow me to place everything into my spreadsheet in a way that enables me to check out exactly what is going on, and since my model is non-linear in nature (everything everything moves in what could be visualized as convection cycles) I'm rather curious to see what occurs and how things become affected (a main complaint about Newton's work is its linearity but when its displayed in my diagrams it isn't linear as Newton's definition of force is that of being a vector and thus becomes circulatory upon modeling out the entire structure of how his equations fit together).

actually my formula of gravity is more different than then Newton had it that what I said here, his masses multiplied so that they are even with each other they would multiply to a different value than the value of mass that I square as I square total mass rather than Newton's product swansont, "The answer to that is no, it's not. The best clocks around the world basically agree to the limits that current equipment and technique allow; the measurement errors are smaller than the purported problems you have outlined." I'll accept your words for now as I fail to have Einstein's relativity equations functional in my spreadsheet yet and would not be able to argue this point without such a construct to back it up. If I could get such a construct set up properly and actually have all figures sum up and equate out as they should, I then could compare actual data to model data and see if their is any sort of difference from one environmental or gravital system to another. As long as such values match up there isn't a problem. If they don't match though there would obviously be some sort of missing constraint in the equations or a problem with the measurement of a second under different environments at which time I'll need to be figuring out where the error is originating from. I'm sorry if I upset you on this matter, but I challenge about anything as I am kind of untrusting and creatively argumentative in my nature. I challenge and I wonder, but I enjoy being wrong as much as I enjoy being right cause when I am wrong I have many things to understand and to test out and to do but when I am right I tend to run out of things to do but feel good about what I achieved. ----------------------- okay been researching a bit trying to figure out what additional variables and equations I should be trying to incorporate into my spreadsheet and stumbled upon my main complaint about the measurement of a second at http://en.wikipedia....tional_redshift. close to the bottom of that page is written, "changing rates of clocks allowed Einstein to conclude that light waves change frequency as they move, and the frequency/energy relationship for photons allowed him to see that this was best interpreted as the effect of the gravitational field on the mass-energy of the photon." Where my complaints fall along the lines that if the measure of a second is equal to the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of radiation corresponding to transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom and subsequently is adjusted by elevation we the measurement of a second is still going to be unbalanced if the periods are unstable to each other due to differing atmospheric conditions encountered at those elevations and that the length of each period should be directly affected by the amount of gravital strength that exists at the core or rather the center-point of balance of the system. Perhaps all that is adjusted and accounted for already, but I did not get that impression upon reading the definition of a second as read upon wikipedia, not that I don't sometimes misunderstand what I read a bit. I guess what I am really asking is shouldn't the definition of a second be adjusted by density and/or pressure rather than by elevation?

No, I am saying that I personally wonder whether the current definition of a second is akin to having a foot sizing problem and is presently geared only towards the foot size of the planet Earth and as such needs all types of adjustments when in use between other celestial bodies. What you think I am basically saying is merely your interpretation of what I wonder about but are not my words. I could be wrong on this matter but I am not wrong by stating that I personally wonder what I am personally wondering. ajb and Svetoslav Pavlov... I appreciate your words of encouragement as I am torn over continuing but to give up on trying to figure things out and getting things to work and come out as they should and all is like giving up the desire to pursue advancement and knowledge at all, without such desire life kind of becomes pointless to me... I'll check out your link Pavlov as it sounds interesting to me. Okay, I admit and have come to the conclusion that I failed or have not yet covered Relativity as Einstein put forth, developed it out, and formulated it to be. But I think in terms of the work of Newton I have figured out his equations and equational structure to the point where the gravity formula he postulated works as he thought it would. My formulation of gravity and his formula of it are the same when both masses are of the same equational value. All variables add up and sum out both during any given moment of time as well as over all subsequent moments of time while equalling the non-summatation equations that they are supposed to be equalling. I need to take what I have now and expand it out to include the formulas of Einstein. I think that I should be able to do this as although I have C^2 defined out as sS, I have not yet placed in a restraint that equates C^2 to the value of the speed of light when average speed equals speed. That constraint would then likely allow me to have different localized values in changes of time, which would be seen in the variables t1 and t2 of which I do not presently have attached as my current formula structure only uses t. I think that is the real difference between Newton's and Einstein's equations, that Newton only went so deep as to observe everything through a system time vantage (t variable) while Einstein observed time through the vantages of the objects themselves (t1, t2 variable). If can do what I postulize that I should be able to do, then all the other formulas of Einstein should sum up and equate out as long as they are good equations. I found all of Newton's equations as being good, except for a minor adjustment in his formulation of gravity, so if I am right I should be able to expand his work out to the work and formulas of Einstein. Any thoughts and feedback on this is appreciated. If anyone wants to try and help just download my spreadsheet and keep in touch. Perhaps what I am doing is foolish, but so far all the spreadsheet stuff I've been doing has been entertaining and fun for me. I definitely am not the best at writing stuff out though, but then again I never claimed to be any good at that, lol.

lol, no argument from me there.. a volt is a unit of electromotive force ... for the curiousity of it I placed the volt formulas into the same structural set up as energy worked in to see if the volt expressions would work in the same set up... you will notice that I do not have volt or the volt equations in my spreadsheet... the structure did however seem to match up fairly well.. I looked at the volt formula as it was expressed in a quick way to look at on the squaring issue that showed the term you said should have been squared like you said it should have been. lol, I also tried working with elements and colors though both of those were were for amusement and I know I didn't do the color one right at all, lol. I stick by the energy equations, their corresponding energy diagrams, and the corresponding spreadsheets. Some of the pages are in my notes just didn't quite get toss out when I should have looked at them closer. Sorry about that.

sorry had V = J / C when it should have read V = J / L I took the formula of the volt as defined upon wikipedia and applied it to the same formula structure that I use for energy. The term you said should be squared is however squared. ----------------------------------------- give me a second am going to check the energy formula I gave you in my spreadsheet.... okay you were right and I was wrong on this matter as when I run that equation in my spreadsheet it goes off by what you said. Pages 31 to 34 in my book should be tossed out. That equation doesn't affect anything though in terms of the spreadsheet or my equational diagram or structure. These pages were older than the rest of my work and did not actually go into my diagram formulas or spreadsheet. ------------------------------------------- mississiuppichem, like I just said to Cap'n Refsmmat, I was in error on that as those pages should have been tossed out completely. I had lots of errors and tried many things while trying to get the equations to sum up and balance out as they should. I didn't check those pages in the spreadsheet before including them, and I was soo wrong in that. I appreciate your words. If something is wrong I'll conceed upon that which is wrong. What I conceeded was however immaterial to what I present.

is a small portion of general relativity. Also, the general form of the equation is actually , where p is momentum; only holds for stationary particles. ------------------------- I know it may be only a small portion but it is still a portion of it. Also, how do you expect this equation to work: .... t is the change in time from one period of time to the next, I used T to represent the summation of time E represents energy. t is time, m is a mass, and c is a velocity. Using those units: Now, units of energy are Joules, which is: ---------------------------------------------- I expressed out this structure in diagram and equational form in my notes whereas your equation gets: Note the subtle difference. Your version of the equation does not give an energy as the result, and so it cannot be correct. Energy cannot be equal to something that isn't an energy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ the volt equation that I worked out that fits to my graph structure on page 18 of my notes is: Volt = V = W / A = NM / AS = Kg M^2 / (C S^2) = NM / C = J / L where: V = volt W = watt A = ampre J = joule S = seconds N = newtons M = metres Kg = kilograms this stucture has your equation exactly as you have it ------------------------- swansont, I am not exactly sure what all the effects of a change in how a second is measured would effect everything. I know the structure I found is solid in its mathematics, I mean it really is a perfect structure that just doesn't pop up out of nowhere. If you look at my spreadsheet you will see what I mean by that. I believe the way I have things structured and equated is worth looking at. How the variables can be further confined and modified in terms of more advanced applications of math in terms of physics may well be outside of my personal knowledge and ability to handle. I wish I were more knowledgeable than I am, but what I have found and done lies at the foundation and base of quite a lot. I think what I have achieved can be expressed and expanded out by those more adept and astute than I. I swear in the structure and the perfect summation and balance of all the equations.