Mordred Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 Yes under the mathematics itself. those images are always misleading to what a 4d model would look like. (good luck actually graphing one) the best you can do is approximate hyperslice representations.
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mordred said: Yes under the mathematics itself. those images are always misleading to what a 4d model would look like. (good luck actually graphing one) the best you can do is approximate hyperslice representations. It's even worse - the entire model is completely incorrect. You all seem to forget about one "small" issue: Our environment is placed deep within the g. field of Earth. To conduct an experiment, which would give us some actually correct readings, we would need to leave the planet and measure the gravity of objects in deep space. Hmm, do you see any problems with this? I see... Rubber surface model won't work in 0-g environment... Still, it is a model, which is approved by science, as the best representation of space-time curvatures. Besides, it is the only officially accepted model, which allows me to observe and measure gravitational interactions of objects (of course, my model, which uses surface of water is still much better - but it is not accepted by science). There's simply no other way, to experiment with g. fields - and without experiments and physical measurements, all theories are nothing more, than sci-fi fairytales. But even if using the model will give me most likely incorrect numbers, it still suppose to represent the gravity. If something can be observed using the model, it should be also observed in the full-scale reality - however we will probably get different values... This is, how models suppose to work - if I see, that something takes place during the experiment, I have a VERY strong reason, to assume, that my theory is correct... If the rubber surface model shows clearly, that force of attraction depends greatly on the size (density) of the central object, I have full right to assume, that: a) my theory is correct b) current models of gravity are completely incorrect and can be used only as trampolines for children Suddenly all started to tell me, that the model can't be treated seriously. But this is the ONLY way, in which you can visualize gravity and the only way to confront a theory with practice. What is an other way, to prove my claims - should I turn the Sun into a black hole and see, if Earth will remain on it's orbit? Sorry - this I can not do... And this is why we have goddamn models. If you say, that I can't use it, because it won't show real results, then it means, that your entire concept of gravity is a total crap - completely virtual and unproven fiction... And if you know any better way of looking, how size of an object affects the g. field - don't be shy and share it with us... Or even better - maybe you know some practical experiment, which will contradict my experiment... Calculations? Not interested - I want simple facts... Anyone? ...Just as I thought... It's funny, how "scientists" put calculations before facts. It's even funnier, when someone tries to check, if those calculations match the observation and it turns out, that they don't... Edited December 28, 2017 by Unified Field
Mordred Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) No the entire model is not incorrect. Take it from one that understands how relativity works under GR/String and QFT treatments. At the moment you haven't presented anything close to a model as of yet. That requires a mathematical rigor I have yet to see in this thread. Your beliefs and feelings are meaningless unless you can prove your model under the math. First and foremost. If you honestly understood GR you would understand there is literally nothing unusual about it. However very few people actually ever do study it in proper detail before passing false judgements. No calculations that is a requirement of physics. Simple fact. the point of physics is being able to plot any dynamic and make predictions based on those plots. Your not talking physics unless your doing the math as well. Why would you find something as simple as a propagation delay of a signal so unusual ? That is literally what time delay is under field treatments. Edited December 28, 2017 by Mordred
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, Mordred said: No the entire model is not incorrect. Take it from one that understands how relativity works under GR/String and QFT treatments. At the moment you haven't presented anything close to a model as of yet. That requires a mathematical rigor I have yet to see in this thread. Actually I presented 2 different models of gravity, where one of them is fully accepted by mainstream science. Both models confirm my claims... So, let's hear what according to such smart guy, as you, is the best way to represent a gravitational field and the forces, which work inside it... .... .... .... Oh, there isn't any? So how can we measure, if the equations are correct? Oh, we can't? And you still call this "science"?
Mordred Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) There is nothing to examine professionally speaking. You have next to nothing actually modeled. I don't bother with wishy washy I think its this way. prove it under math. You posted numerous videos on hydro magnetic dynamics with regards to weather. You should have some math skills if you even understood any of the equations they use. Under GR they don't actually change much start there. LOL after all Maxwell and Lorentz equations indicated the need for relativity in the first place. For example second order flux tubes. If you could model that then relativity should be a cinch to figure out. Edited December 28, 2017 by Mordred
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Mordred said: There is nothing to examine professionally speaking. Yes, there's nothing to examine, as there was still no observation. Quote You have next to nothing actually modeled. I don't need to - we already have the model Quote I don't bother with wishy washy I think its this way. Exactly - so let's see if it works and if it can be meassured spoiler alert - it works and can be measured Quote prove it under math. I will prove it with practical experiment - what has much greater scientific value After I will take the measurements, I will use them to build a mathematical formula... Math is not a proof of anything - it's only a tool... Edited December 28, 2017 by Unified Field
Mordred Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) No you don't understand apparently. This forum has specific rules to allow a Speculation thread to continue. One of those things is mathematical rigor in particular under any Physics based model. So this isn't something to be avoided. There is literally millions of tests of relativity everyday. All forms of Doppler shift is equivalent to time dilation. This includes radar guns, though its isn't necessary to model under GR its still a signal delay. Every particle accelerator collision tests the invariant and variant mass nature. They even measured time dilation in 100' of seperate experiments. Trust me you need to do far far better if you ever expect anyone to take you seriously. Edited December 28, 2017 by Mordred
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, Mordred said: No you don't understand apparently. This forum has specific rules to allow a Speculation thread to continue. One of those things is mathematical rigor in particular under any Physics based model. So this isn't something to be avoided. There is literally millions of tests of relativity everyday. All forms of Doppler shift is equivalent to time dilation. This includes radar guns, though its isn't necessary to model under GR its still a signal delay. Every particle accelerator collision tests the invariant and variant mass nature. They even measured time dilation in 100' of seperate experiments. Trust me you need to do far far better if you ever expect anyone to take you seriously. Blah blah blah... Are there any real-life tests of gravity being (or not) affected by the size of an object? No? Then what are we talking about? How can I use math, if I don't have any actual numbers? Where should I get them from? Guess them? Use magic? -1
Mordred Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) Umm try under field treatment. You don't need actual numbers yet. You model the range of viable numbers under a coordinate (as per graph function). Start with Galilean relativity (Everyday Euclid under a geometry transformation). After all your building the model, if you have any hope of being listened to by any professional. You will need to prove your knowledge mathematically. Edited December 28, 2017 by Mordred
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 Just now, Mordred said: Umm try under field treatment. You don't need actual numbers yet. You model the range of viable numbers under a coordinate (as per graph function) Waste of time... If I want to create a formula, I base it on actual data. There's absolutely no sense to use the math, if I still don't know, what are the correlations between different values. It's like trying to calculate, what I will have for breakfest next Tuesday...
Mordred Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 Please reread the link on the forum rules, this thread won't last long with that response.
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 Quote Start with Galilean relativity (Everyday Euclid under a geometry transformation). After all your building the model, if you have any hope of being listened to by any professional. You will need to prove your knowledge mathematically. I think, that an actual scientist (if there are still any) knows the value of an empirically proved fact. Problem is, when "scientists" keep ignoring facts and use calculations, as proof... Don't worry - I will create the formula anyway. But why does it matter to you, how I will make it? Why you insist so hard, to create it BEFORE collecting the data and not after? Don't you think, that it doesn't make sense, to calculate things, which are based on pure speculations?
Mordred Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) Yes and I provided some everyday empirical evidence which you ignored or discounted. Prove me wrong Explain moun decay as to how muons can reach Earths surface, explain the atomic clock tests, explain Doppler shift, explain Grsvitational lensing, explain,... I could literally find far far more tests performed etc for relativity. Edited December 28, 2017 by Mordred
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 Just now, Mordred said: Yes and I provided some everyday empirical evidence which you ignored or discounted. Prove me wrong Which are? There's no empirical evidence of gravity depending (or not) on the size of objects. If there is, then show it to me...
Mordred Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) Oh really what about our own solar system itself? There were two seperate tests initially involved to first test GR. Far more nowadays. Hades star via gravitational lensing, Mercury orbit. Edited December 28, 2017 by Mordred
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 Quote Explain moun decay as to how muons can reach Earths surface, explain the atomic clock tests, explain Doppler shift, explain Grsvitational lensing, explain,... I could literally find far far more tests performed etc for relativity. 95% of those things have nothing to do with my experiment. As for the gravitational lensing - I have already the explanation, but first I need to deal with the subject of size and gravity. Do you want me, to deal with each aspect of physics simultaneusly? Quote Oh really what about our own solar system itself? There were two seperate tests initially involved to first test GR. Far more nowadays. Hades star via gravitational lensing, Mercury orbit. Cool... But how this is connected with the influence of size of an object on the g. field?
Mordred Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) You haven't got anthing yet. A magneto hydrodynamic field has spin 1 statistics which has none of needed characteristics the observational tests for GR fall under. Which is spin zero. Start with the electromagnetic field. If you like I can readily show this under Maxwell. There is very distinctive differences between magnetohydronics and how it would show up under measurement compared to the tests under GR. Start with basic kinematics if you must under calculus. Edited December 28, 2017 by Mordred
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 1 minute ago, Mordred said: You haven't got anthing yet. A magneto hydrodynamic field has spin 1 statistics which has none of the observational tests for GR fall under. Which is spin zero. If you like I can readily show this under Maxwell. There is very distinctive differences between magnetohydronics and how it would show up under measurement compared to the tests under GR. Start with basic kinematics if you must under calculus. I really love MHD and it's beautiful simplicity - you can check, how I used it, to describe flux transfer events affecting the circulation of airmasses: But I don't need MHD, to explain my experiment - I have the feeling, that you just try to confuse me... Sorry, it won't work...
Mordred Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) No actually I am not. MHD has its relativistic equations as well. I understand how they work as well as GR. So go ahead show me tell me how you generated those videos without applying any equations? Edited December 28, 2017 by Mordred
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 Just now, Mordred said: No actually I am not. MHD has its relstivistic equations as well. I'm sure it has... So? My experiment doesn't include magnetic fields or electric currents and it doesn't include any conducting fluids. As much, as I like MHD, it is simply completely useless in this case...
Mordred Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) So what is your gradiose solution to solve every problem you described in your posts? Or the grandiose claims? You don't have one on any of them yet. Simple babble of disbelief is pointless. The rubber sheet is nothing but a laymens genetalization for those with no math skill analogy. It isn't anything like that in reality. Edited December 28, 2017 by Mordred
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 4 minutes ago, Mordred said: So what is your gradiose solution to solve every problem you described in your posts? Or the grandiose claims? I don't remember making any kind of promise, to solve all the problems of science. I can only try, to point out some of the issues and propose something, to fix it. Question is: will you have the balls, to admit your own mistake? Because it seems, that "scientists" are making everything, to ignore facts, which they don't like... Quote You don't have one on any of them yet. Simple babble of disbelief is pointless. You just don't know, what I have. Problem is, that you want me to make some miracle: give you somekind of sacred formula, which will explain all the mysteries of Universe, with couple letters and symbols. Sadly, I'm not Einstein or Jesus or some other saviour of science. Do you really expect, that I will explain entire Universe in a single thread? Even, if I try, moderators would probably close the discussion, if they would notice, that I might be correct (it happened already once)...
Mordred Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) Well you need to At least present some effort other than mere disbelief. So obviously you don't have anything remotely examinable. Edited December 28, 2017 by Mordred
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 5 minutes ago, Mordred said: Well you need to At least present some effort other than mere disbelief. So obviously you don't have anything remotely examinable. That's why I will make the experiment and measure it's effects - something, what is the essence of whole science. Maybe you just didn't notice, that I already presented the concept and made some assumptions, as for the results, while explaining, why I expect to observe such effects. I managed as well to make some attempts, to see, if my assumptions are correct. Simply, my theory is already in some 60-70% a scientific fact. After I take the measurements, create the formula and check, if it matches the results in every possible case, my theory will turn into something called as "law" or "rule"...
Recommended Posts