Humblemun

I've made a qualitative prediction for the Juno flyby anomaly expected on Oct 9th 2013. That's not long to wait. Here's a recent article which is potentially on the same lines as my own ideas: MOND predicts dwarf galaxy feature prior to observations - Also indicates gravity fields vary where dark matter presumes uniformity

Yes, this is the way forward imv.

ok

I doubt whether it was the same as my own worldview. More likely your rash judgement of an apparent similarity was enough for the comment "with exactly the same mechanism as yours".

I've probably said too much on the matter already.

The testing of relativity given in the OP relies on atomic clocks which rely on atomic theory, which is the modelling of the atom in isolation.

I don't think it was me. Can you direct me to it please?

It might happen if science moves on in a new and unexpected direction.

That was the Wikipedia engineering example of the discipline. My Professor of Simulation Modelling used to solve problems of big multi-national companies. One story involved the problem a company was having with oil tankers worldwide, trying to make them as profitable as possible. Eventually after much research and modelling the problem was found to be the harbour masters taking "back handers" for a quicker entry into port. There's certain problems which are better suited to simulation modelling and some better suited to mathematical modelling.

I prefer the acetone production hypothesis by Brian J Ford Professor's breakthrough on human combustion theory but with the trigger being an intermittent force from exotic fluid matter at the Earth's core. There was an interesting Daily Mail article on the subject just recently Can a baby just burst into flames? This child is claimed to have spontaneously combusted FOUR times. Crazy? A new theory offers a tantalising explanation.

Shouldn't you two be on the bickering site?

Fluid exotic matter which intermittently emits force particles which interact with fluids to create an anomaly with an acceleration towards the surface with a lateral deviation to the left. It's my solution for the 777 crash at San Franscisco Airport just recently: Autothrottle Function Probed in Asiana 777 Crash

Wow, you're making approximations about myself. I've said elsewhere that I'm very respectful of the need for mathematics and that it is complementary to simulation modelling.

Most people on here seem more than sure that Newton's and Einstein's continued works are the real deal. Newton assumed that the Earth is composed of entirely the same kind of matter found on the surface. I've deduced that fluid exotic matter exists around the central core. The foundations of the modern mainstream theory of gravity is way to simplistic for me to take seriously. "Time" is a factor within these potentially very flawed equations.

They certainly don't have one for the nucleus that I've seen which makes me think they have a full understanding of the inner most workings of structure. As my Professor of Simulation Modelling used to say, when you're 90% sure of something is when you are at your most dangerous.

Funnily enough, I was a self-employed garden fencer after a being a Scientific Officer, so I used to mix concrete on a regular basis. I did it all by eye eventually of course. They'd be a multitude of reasons why I might want a particular mix to be runnier than another. It's from performing a task in the real world with real world ingredients many times over which gives a human being skill as a craftsman. Yes, I think I understand where you're coming from, mathematicians tend to forget that maths is just a model of reality. Reality isn't maths, but there's a surprising number of individuals who think so.

It's the mathematical concept of "time" that I uncomfortable with. In a simulation model of the creation of structure, I can imagine structures forming from an external energy within a void which eventually become spinning neutrons, protons and galaxies. I don't need complex mathematics, just a visual model. "Time" is just a perception within the minds of human beings who observe structures moving relative to one another. Until atomic physics has a simulation model of the nucleus and electrons, then I'm not happy with mathematical modelling of time. I want a TOE that a layman can understand.

My Professor of Simulation Modelling used to say that both were complementary. When he went for a contract, he could come out of the room and have a prototype working simulation model of the system described within 15 minutes and then show the potential clients. This factor would often give him the winning egde over the mathematical modellers. It suits people with very visual types of imagination, as opposed to natural mathematicians. I naturally prefer to imagine a mechanical system for understanding, whilst a mathematician doesn't, they can rely on the logic of the equations. My professor said that the two methods were entirely different but would often come up with exactly the same answer/solution.

Yes, that's the general idea. I have a personal mind-model of the creation of structure. I've always wanted to simulate it, but it was beyond my capabilities. I'd be grateful of any positive feedback: Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die?. NB I actually think these two initial opposing fractal helix structures could create an overall force of attraction via Archimedes screw particle emissions and cause an implosion rather travelling around a hypersphere to create a subsequent collision. Edit: This anaysis has led to my prediction of the forthcoming Juno flyby on Oct 9th 2013: an large positive additional acceleration with a signature lateral deviation to the left. (Caused by an excess of left-hand spinning Archimedes screw gravitons). P.S. I just checked your profile. I studied Simulation Modelling at Brunel University at MSc level whilst employed as a Scientific Officer at DERA Farnborough. Professor Ray Paul was an originator of this discipline I believe. I didn't complete the course, but left enlightened enough to leave my job (I have mild Aspergers), and travel the world with a friend, gathering information to solve the whole shebang when in middle age. That time has now arrived (lol)

It's an understanding of the system you are trying to represent. This hapens within the human mind and is then entered as computer code. The computer then represents the dynamics of the system on a monitor screen. Here's a Wikipedia view on it:

An excellent observation.

Excellent thread. I particularly liked the phrase "A turnip that can turn left is annoyed when its turnip companions refuse to follow it", which I've never heard before. It reminded me of my qualitative prediction for Juno's flby anomaly on Oct 9th 2013: a lateral deviation to the left. Thanks for sharing.

The relatively new discipline of Simulation Modeling is also a better way forward than mathematical modeling imv. Only when we have a simulation model of the creation of structure itself, which then continues to produce a picture which closely resembles our view of the multltitude of galaxies, can we really begin to pat ourselves on the back. A simulation model of spiral galaxy rotation is beyond our capabilities at the moment.

Hi ajkoer, I found the topic of this thread very relevant to some of my own research. It reminded me of other kinds of disasters which were attributed to sudden inexplicable increases of fluid pressure. There's been train disasters, most recently the Canadian tragedy, where "fail-safe brakes" have failed. A loss of fluid pressure would actually apply the brakes, so only a mystery increase in pressure could release them. The other issue is a multitude of hydraulic fluid pressure loss on aircraft landing gear. On some occasions, the landing gear has suddenly dropped under the influence of gravity whilst inflight. I have an alternative hypothesis: an intermittent geo-force which acts on fluids but not solids. It sounds a strange idea, I know. I have deduced that this mystery force is from fluid exotic matter around the 360 mile diameter innermost core of the Earth. This deduced intermittent force is also a good candidate for the Earth flyby anomaly. What do you think to this left field way of thinking?

But it belies common sense. There is no physical mechanism that can be imagined within the mind of a rational human being. "time runs faster in a lower gravitational field" doesn't apply to pendulums. That's my point. Give me some slack please.