A Time Experiment

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

I do, but what I believe goes wrong is that we use centrifugal force as the model when we visualize an orbit. We see an invisible tether when there isn't one. 

It's trivial to show that an object moving in a circle can only do so if there is a force pulling it towards the center. It's done in first semester physics. 

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

 I accept those rules. But there is no speculation as these things are scientific facts. Einstein showed that gravity is not a force but is instead things with similar velocities sharing the same time frame and consequently needing to converge (time being a single dimension). 

They are not scientific facts. They run contrary to what we know about physics.

 

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

Good research, but a meter gives us a liter gives us a kilogram. 

Because we chose a system where that's the case. You don't have to use metric. There are imperial units, which is a mess of a system because they were not chosen with any of these relationships in mind.

 

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

We travel through space at the same rate as earth.

We do not. 

As I pointed out before, if we use our orbit as a reference, at noon someone at the equator is moving faster than the this reference, and at midnight they are moving slower, because the earth rotates. There is no one value for "the rate the earth moves through space" if you are looking at the surface. Someone at the equator at noon is moving faster than someone at 45 degrees of latitude.

 

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

If we were slower we would be left behind, if we were faster we would be in orbit. If we were really fast we would still travel in parallel but on regular non-converging non-curved (straight) lines as we eventually leave the earth's mass distortion of spacetime. 

 Have you ever moved east or west, ever? Because if you did I guarantee you moved either faster or slower than the point where you started, and yet you still remained tethered to the earth. You were not left behind, nor were you in orbit.

 

[Markus Hanke]

17 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Einstein showed that gravity is not a force but is instead things with similar velocities sharing the same time frame and consequently needing to converge (time being a single dimension). 

Gravity in GR is geodesic deviation, meaning the failure of initially parallel geodesics to remain parallel due to the geometry of spacetime. This has nothing to do with velocities, and involves both time and space.

[Greg A.]

18 hours ago, swansont said:

It's trivial to show that an object moving in a circle can only do so if there is a force pulling it towards the center. It's done in first semester physics. 

They are not scientific facts. They run contrary to what we know about physics.

You mean what Newtonians know about physics. 

18 hours ago, swansont said:

 

Because we chose a system where that's the case. You don't have to use metric. There are imperial units, which is a mess of a system because they were not chosen with any of these relationships in mind.

 

Imperial is not part of any real system and that is why it's not used all that much anymore. Feet go into yards, but yards don't go with miles. Likewise temperature does not fit in either?  And one cubic foot is not a gallon for example. Whereas one cubic decimeter is one liter and is one kg of water.  

 

18 hours ago, swansont said:

We do not. 

As I pointed out before, if we use our orbit as a reference, at noon someone at the equator is moving faster than the this reference, and at midnight they are moving slower, because the earth rotates. There is no one value for "the rate the earth moves through space" if you are looking at the surface. Someone at the equator at noon is moving faster than someone at 45 degrees of latitude.

 

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Gravity in GR is geodesic deviation, meaning the failure of initially parallel geodesics to remain parallel due to the geometry of spacetime. This has nothing to do with velocities, and involves both time and space.

You know a lot more about physics than me but despite that I'm going to stick my neck out and say you are wrong. 

It's the moon's greater velocity that puts it on non-convergent parallel. Whereas ours is a convergent parallel because we are traveling at the same speed as earth.  

18 hours ago, swansont said:

 

 Have you ever moved east or west, ever? Because if you did I guarantee you moved either faster or slower than the point where you started, and yet you still remained tethered to the earth. You were not left behind, nor were you in orbit.

 

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by Greg A.

[Greg A.]

18 hours ago, swansont said:

It's trivial to show that an object moving in a circle can only do so if there is a force pulling it towards the center. It's done in first semester physics. 

They are not scientific facts. They run contrary to what we know about physics.

You mean what Newtonians know about physics. 

18 hours ago, swansont said:

Because we chose a system where that's the case. You don't have to use metric. There are imperial units, which is a mess of a system because they were not chosen with any of these relationships in mind.

That's right imperial is not part of any real system and that is why it's not used all that much anymore. Feet go into yards, but yards don't go with miles. Likewise temperature does not fit in either.  And one cubic foot is not a gallon for example. Whereas one cubic decimeter is one liter and is one kg of water.  

 

18 hours ago, swansont said:

We do not. 

As I pointed out before, if we use our orbit as a reference, at noon someone at the equator is moving faster than the this reference, and at midnight they are moving slower, because the earth rotates. There is no one value for "the rate the earth moves through space" if you are looking at the surface. Someone at the equator at noon is moving faster than someone at 45 degrees of latitude.

 

Sure, earth's rotation decide 'a' velocity, but this is insufficient to make the slightest bit of difference. So, there's no need for me to stand on the north or south pole to argue this the point that I'm making. 

I've noticed that in the past (doing battle with atheists) that the only people that I got consistent replies from where those that had little understanding of what it is I'm saying.  So, check the intellectual arrogance and consider properly what it is that's being said. And, when you see that you have been mistaken you will want to drop off with the replies. I hope in this instance that it does not happen this way and you will have the integrity to continue. That's because my 'prediction' is far more important than this argument we are having when it comes to outcomes. 

 

18 hours ago, swansont said:

 Have you ever moved east or west, ever? Because if you did I guarantee you moved either faster or slower than the point where you started, and yet you still remained tethered to the earth. You were not left behind, nor were you in orbit.

 

Sure, but I would have weighed slightly less when I moved. And I'd meant significantly slower or faster than earth itself (rather than its surface).  

[Markus Hanke]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

You know a lot more about physics than me but despite that I'm going to stick my neck out and say you are wrong. 

Do you mean I’m wrong about what GR says? Certainly not - what I told you is a basic fact about the model. I can show you the maths, if you like, or you can just take my word on it that I spent years studying it in detail, and kind of know what I’m talking about. It’s my area of expertise.

Or do you mean GR is wrong about gravity being geodesic deviation? Well, you must realise that it is an exceptionally successful model, which has been extensively tested over the past century. It works far to well for its basics to be “wrong” in any meaningful sense.

So it’s probably best if you don’t stick out your neck all too far...

 

[Greg A.]

54 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Do you mean I’m wrong about what GR says? Certainly not - what I told you is a basic fact about the model. I can show you the maths, if you like, or you can just take my word on it that I spent years studying it in detail, and kind of know what I’m talking about. It’s my area of expertise.

Or do you mean GR is wrong about gravity being geodesic deviation? Well, you must realise that it is an exceptionally successful model, which has been extensively tested over the past century. It works far to well for its basics to be “wrong” in any meaningful sense.

So it’s probably best if you don’t stick out your neck all too far...

 

I'm sure you are not wrong about GR as it is as it as it reads. And If anything I say is at odds with GR, then most certainly I am wrong because I don't have any credentials whatsoever when it comes to physics. But what I don't think I'm  wrong about and is something that you have clearly omitted in this reply and that is the effect of 'velocity'. 

It's earth's 13,000,000 mph velocity that decides a point in time that anything caught up in the curvature of spacetime earth's mass causes that decides the point of convergence that we all 'gravitate' to as a result of having that very same velocity. The converging parallels common point deciding all matter on earth heads to that point in its travel through time, the resultant 'effect', gravity.

Edited July 26, 2022 by Greg A.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

 

It's earth's 13,000,000 mph velocity that decides a point in time that anything caught up in the curvature of spacetime earth's mass causes that decides the point of convergence that we all 'gravitate' to as a result of having that very same velocity. The converging parallels common point deciding all matter on earth heads to that point in its travel through time, the resultant 'effect', gravity.

Velocity with respect to what? Where did you get 13 million mph?

2 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Sure, earth's rotation decide 'a' velocity, but this is insufficient to make the slightest bit of difference. So, there's no need for me to stand on the north or south pole to argue this the point that I'm making. 

You haven't explained why this would be insufficient. All you've said is that we move the same rate as the earth, and that's not a meaningful statement

2 hours ago, Greg A. said:

I've noticed that in the past (doing battle with atheists) that the only people that I got consistent replies from where those that had little understanding of what it is I'm saying.  So, check the intellectual arrogance and consider properly what it is that's being said. And, when you see that you have been mistaken you will want to drop off with the replies. I hope in this instance that it does not happen this way and you will have the integrity to continue. That's because my 'prediction' is far more important than this argument we are having when it comes to outcomes. 

 

I am considering what you've said, and am pointing out how imprecise the statements are. Perhaps you should check your intellectual arrogance and consider that your explanations are not clear, consistent and detailed enough to stand up to scrutiny by scientists.

And since you won't tell us what the prediction is, it's irrelevant to the discussion. You can dispense with the melodrama. 

[Greg A.]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Velocity with respect to what? Where did you get 13 million mph?

It would be with respect to the black hole at the center of the Milky Way.

A Google search gives the velocity of earth at 13M mph.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You haven't explained why this would be insufficient. All you've said is that we move the same rate as the earth, and that's not a meaningful statement

The fastest we could naturally travel would be around 1000 mph at the equator.  So, that added to earth's velocity would only shift our point of convergence to one still well under the horizon. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I am considering what you've said, and am pointing out how imprecise the statements are. Perhaps you should check your intellectual arrogance and consider that your explanations are not clear, consistent and detailed enough to stand up to scrutiny by scientists.

My statements are imprecise because I never had a lot of formal education. I am arrogant, but it sure isn't due to intellectuality. My lack of education has forced me to have to visualize the processes that lead to 'gravity' as I know no maths. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

And since you won't tell us what the prediction is, it's irrelevant to the discussion. You can dispense with the melodrama. 

As pointed out in the opening post that if Time is real, the future exists, then any event occurring in the future will be impossible to stop. If that event is physical as in the Transit of Venus, then it would take physical measures to prevent it from happening. But if a particular event has its cause in society for example,  prevention attempts doomed to fail regardless, will be at a social level. 

So, the reason why I have not been able to present my prediction is that out of principle I have been obliged to instead answer all of the challenges to my position one at a time. A situation that I submit as evidence of both the existence of time and the predicted outcome in that this inability is consistent with chronological barriers needed to applying the necessary social fixes. The second barrier now appearing is that you have decided it (the prediction) is now irrelevant to the discussion.  Do you see what I'm saying, barriers won't be physical, but will present themselves as technicalities and catch 22 situations. 

And all the arrogance in the world should not allow you to dismiss what I say now as I've shown you have been (simply) mistaken with your views in relation to mine. 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by Greg A.

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

My statements are imprecise because I never had a lot of formal education. I am arrogant, but it sure isn't due to intellectuality. My lack of education has forced me to have to visualize the processes that lead to 'gravity' as I know no maths. 

Time and gravity are just directions, it's only when YOU move that the direction has any influence on YOU; an oversimplification but it's a good place to start your education.

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

As pointed out in the opening post that if Time is real, the future exists, then any event occurring in the future will be impossible to stop.

That isn't science, that is philosophy.  You are positing a belief that the future is set and there is no way to change it.  There is no experiment, that I am aware of that could possibly disprove that, so it is not science, it is a belief.

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

And all the arrogance in the world should not allow you to dismiss what I say now as I've shown you have been (simply) mistaken with your views in relation to mine.

You are being arrogant about a subject that you yourself have stated you are ignorant of, that is an absurd way to behave.  The mistake here is that you think your philosophical beliefs are science and they are not. 

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

As pointed out in the opening post that if Time is real, the future exists, then any event occurring in the future will be impossible to stop

So let me try and understand your premise, what you are saying is that the future is effectively an infinite line of fixed unchangeable points and gravity is a perceived effect of travelling to those points at differencing velocities?

The future doesn't have to be fixed for time to be real. I cannot fathom the relationship  that you are trying to establish regarding velocity, time and gravity??? 

The relationships have been explained to you based on verified models, that have been established for a long time and proven to work over and over (as Markus stated).

So what is it you are arguing against, and no disrespect but if ( by your own admission) you have no formal science education how can you expect to argue against those that do?? To argue against something you really need to understand what you are arguing against in the first place, would you not agree? 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

My lack of education has forced me to have to visualize the processes that lead to 'gravity' as I know no maths. 

The problem with only visualizing from a limited knowledge base is obvious. You don't know how to visualize what you haven't learned, so your visualization may not adequately cover the processes. Maths would at least allow you to check your observations against the natural world. Do you have a way to test your ideas? We're following scientific methodology, and if that doesn't work for you, don't you think you need a way to check your process (besides "This makes sense to me") to keep you honest and accurate?

Also, the problem with saying GR is wrong has NOTHING to do with your education or lack thereof. Please say it with me. The problem with saying GR is wrong is that you now have to show why GPS works, why time dilates in a gravitational field, why predictions of gravitational waves were correct, basically why the theory allows us to explain so much if it's so wrong. THAT is what you haven't come close to doing. And I don't think it's arrogant to baldly assert that your ideas are right in the face of so much science to the contrary. I think it's lazy, counterproductive, and a waste of time. YOU should be asking questions here, not trying to lecture people who actually work with atomic clocks and aerospace and cosmology, using mainstream physics every day.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Greg A. said:

It would be with respect to the black hole at the center of the Milky Way.

A Google search gives the velocity of earth at 13M mph.

I found this, which has our galaxy moving at 1.3 million mph wrt the cosmic microwave background.

https://www.businessinsider.in/science/news/earth-is-screaming-through-space-at-1-3-million-mph-a-simple-animation-by-a-former-nasa-scientist-shows-what-that-looks-like-/articleshow/71542580.cms

Earth orbits the sun at 66,600 mph, and the sun orbits the Milky Way at 514,500 mph, our solar system's speed relative to the CMB is about 827,000 mph. Zoom out further, and our entire galaxy is zipping through the CMB at about 1.3 million mph.

Of course, the earth orbiting the sun means sometimes the speed adds to the speed of the solar system's morion, and sometimes it's subtracted from it. Similarly, the speed of the solar system in the galactic rotation would sometimes add to or be subtracted from the speed of the galaxy WRT the CMB. Note that our speed WRT the CMB is not the same as the galaxy's speed. 

 

5 hours ago, Greg A. said:

 My statements are imprecise because I never had a lot of formal education. I am arrogant, but it sure isn't due to intellectuality. My lack of education has forced me to have to visualize the processes that lead to 'gravity' as I know no maths. 

It also doesn't let you check to see if you are wrong. And yet when people who have studied these matters tell you that you are, you continue to insist that you are right.

 

5 hours ago, Greg A. said:

As pointed out in the opening post that if Time is real, the future exists, then any event occurring in the future will be impossible to stop. If that event is physical as in the Transit of Venus, then it would take physical measures to prevent it from happening. But if a particular event has its cause in society for example,  prevention attempts doomed to fail regardless, will be at a social level. 

Without giving details such a discussion is pretty much worthless, and it also would have to do with how society works rather than the nature of time.

 

5 hours ago, Greg A. said:

So, the reason why I have not been able to present my prediction is that out of principle I have been obliged to instead answer all of the challenges to my position one at a time. A situation that I submit as evidence of both the existence of time and the predicted outcome in that this inability is consistent with chronological barriers needed to applying the necessary social fixes. The second barrier now appearing is that you have decided it (the prediction) is now irrelevant to the discussion.  Do you see what I'm saying, barriers won't be physical, but will present themselves as technicalities and catch 22 situations. 

Your refusal to share the prediction is why it's irrelevant. That decision is under your control, not anyone else's involved in this discussion.

5 hours ago, Greg A. said:

And all the arrogance in the world should not allow you to dismiss what I say now as I've shown you have been (simply) mistaken with your views in relation to mine. 

It's clear that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to physics, so how you come to this conclusion might fall under the Dunning-Kruger effect. I dismiss what you have to say because it is trivially wrong, and I've given feedback on how this is so. All you've done is tap-dance around and try to move the goalposts.

The only question here is whether you really believe what you're peddling, or if you're just trolling. Every attempt to deflect inquiry rather than clarify points to the latter. 

[Markus Hanke]

22 hours ago, Greg A. said:

But what I don't think I'm  wrong about and is something that you have clearly omitted in this reply and that is the effect of 'velocity'. 

Velocity does not factor into the gravitational field equations, because it is irrelevant to the geometry of spacetime - or, to put it differently, relative motion is not a source of gravity.

Where velocity does play a role is in determining which of the possible geodesics a test particle in free fall will follow. The geodesic equation is a system of partial differential equations - so, in order to find a particular solution, you need to supply boundary conditions. Initial velocity - as a vector - is usually one of these. It’s like selecting the correct geodesic out of all the possible ones. However, which ones are possible, and how exactly these look, is determined by the metric and the connection - ie the geometry of spacetime. And this has nothing to do with any velocities.

19 hours ago, Greg A. said:

My lack of education has forced me to have to visualize the processes that lead to 'gravity' as I know no maths. 

Lack of education isn’t an obstacle, as it can be remedied easily - these days, you can learn any topic you like using freely available resources online. This is especially true for maths and physics.

What is an obstacle is thinking you can simply dismiss a well-established model that you know little to nothing about, and replace it with an idea of your own based solely on it making sense to you. Surely you can see the problem yourself. You cannot visualise gravity in all its degrees of freedom - even I can’t do that, after spending many years on this. To this day I sometimes get surprised by totally unexpected and counterintuitive results, which one can only find using the maths. That’s how it is.

[Greg A.]

23 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

That isn't science, that is philosophy.  You are positing a belief that the future is set and there is no way to change it.  There is no experiment, that I am aware of that could possibly disprove that, so it is not science, it is a belief.

You are being arrogant about a subject that you yourself have stated you are ignorant of, that is an absurd way to behave.  The mistake here is that you think your philosophical beliefs are science and they are not. 

Sure, philosophy under the guise of a science experiment is what it is. And is the only way I'd figured I could get 'thinking' people to consider the prediction I make. But that said I've arrived here at this particular forum because of the realization that the difficulties involved in doing this might relate to the supposed event actually being a real outcome, and consequently being something impossible to stop. So, the experiment still has a basis in physics, I believe, and will continue: 

Suppose you were a time traveler that had come from the future and traveled back 100 years to now. You could be aware of a particular event calculated to happen in 95 years. If so you would realize nothing could possibly be done to prevent that thing from occurring. So, for example we can be reasonably certain the next Transit of Venus will take place. As something that is effectively set to happen in the future we can be sure we can't change it. And that's because even though it is a very physical event, philosophically there would be no logical reason to try and stop it anyhow. It's those two things that combine now to make it a certainty. 

And suppose we make a prediction of another event we believe is set to happen in 100 years time then we would also expect this outcome to be unpreventable now or in the preceding future. That's if the concept of a future is also valid in reality. This is logic. 

I submit as evidence to this outcome being inevitable, and of the future being real, and consequently Time itself being real, the fact that this prediction, a philosophical one, and as such requiring minimal physical energy to prevent, then needs to be protected in other ways. And that these need to be in the form of (non physical) barriers being set in place. 

An example: I've set about to conduct a time experiment using a relatively simple prediction, yet despite this that has so far proved impossible to make as I've been obliged to reply to all responses relating to a topic I know so little of (physics) and that it has taken time and thought to make, let's face it, not a lot of difference. 

Next example: I've calculated that as at the time of the opening post we had only around 9 months to the point  of no return on this that's if anything can be done, 2 weeks of that time have since elapsed.  

Another example would be if you're successful in dismissing my thread as being only philosophical (when it is not). 

These things and the many more easily predicted present themselves as barriers, a chronological protection series. As such evidence of a future catastrophe in this instance, and if so of the evil (negative activity) that is needed to ensure it happening. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

I've set about to conduct a time experiment using a relatively simple prediction, yet despite this that has so far proved impossible to make as I've been obliged to reply to all responses...

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[swansont]

31 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

Suppose you were a time traveler that had come from the future and traveled back 100 years to now.

That would make this a science fiction discussion.

[Greg A.]

On 7/26/2022 at 11:41 PM, Intoscience said:

So let me try and understand your premise, what you are saying is that the future is effectively an infinite line of fixed unchangeable points and gravity is a perceived effect of travelling to those points at differencing velocities?

I can understand why it is you misunderstand what it is I'm saying because even having slightly less than a seventh grade education I still have poor word skills regardless. 

So to summarize: I 'don't' believe in 'Time' but I do accept the argument for 'time'. For example think back to your last meal, calculate how many hours ago that was, then try and rationalize the meaning of Time. You will find you can't do it. I mean are you in the past then and now in the present, and if so what does that mean. Is there a version of you at that meal another now? So try again, this time eliminate Time, making the difference between your meal and now only a change in physical positions. The temporal aspect only ever a part of your mind. Time is an illusion. The dinosaurs are still here, surrounding us in the dust, and in actuality on (maybe) other planets younger than the earth. Motion, not time, has dispersed them on this planet. You want to go back in time to your meal, then go forward (let the earth rotate some), make your way back to where it was your meal took place. And chances are it will be the same people/person serving, same other diners taking part. 

 

The argument for time is on the other hand scientific, and is not something in anyway way temporal. For example you walk from one room to the another, your trip takes 10 seconds as read on the hands of a clock, analogous with the earth's rotation, the hands pointing to digits, an analogue to digital conversion in effect and nothing more, this is Time. Our acceleration, velocity and deceleration while on the trip 'subtracting infinitesimal fractions of a second from the rest frame the rooms represent, this is time.  

 

 

On 7/26/2022 at 11:41 PM, Intoscience said:

The future doesn't have to be fixed for time to be real. I cannot fathom the relationship  that you are trying to establish regarding velocity, time and gravity??? 

The relationships have been explained to you based on verified models, that have been established for a long time and proven to work over and over (as Markus stated).

So what is it you are arguing against, and no disrespect but if ( by your own admission) you have no formal science education how can you expect to argue against those that do?? To argue against something you really need to understand what you are arguing against in the first place, would you not agree? 

You will find I'm not arguing against those that do, as those that do choose to not argue against me. It is those that don't properly understand what time is that, logically, choose to argue against me. 

And this is said in no disrespect either because if you were not in effect blinkered by the maths and had to figure out of necessity a visual model you would have arrived at these conclusions in no doubt much less time than myself.  

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Greg A.
Spelling

[Ghideon]

 

On 7/25/2022 at 10:03 AM, Greg A. said:

I'd say that as there is no movement involved then there can be no accurate prediction and therefor what leads up to its decay is part of the quantum realm? 

I'd say quite the opposite; accurate predictions about rate of decay can be made regardless of movement. Decay is stochastic, you need a sample that is large enough to make predictions, not movement. Movement does not add accuracy.

( We can't predict when one specific particle will decay, nuclei half-life allows for good approximations for large samples on average. I think a detailed explanation is off topic.) 

[Greg A.]

On 7/27/2022 at 1:17 AM, Phi for All said:

The problem with only visualizing from a limited knowledge base is obvious. You don't know how to visualize what you haven't learned, so your visualization may not adequately cover the processes.

 

 

But I have learned from the non-math aspects of scientific research. I am a dummy and could never have come up with these things completely on my own. You have not attempted to visualize gravity and is why you have been mislead substantially by not doing that. 

 

On 7/27/2022 at 1:17 AM, Phi for All said:

Maths would at least allow you to check your observations against the natural world. Do you have a way to test your ideas? We're following scientific methodology, and if that doesn't work for you, don't you think you need a way to check your process (besides "This makes sense to me") to keep you honest and accurate?

These are not my ideas really. But if they are then they most certainly are wrong. 

On 7/27/2022 at 1:17 AM, Phi for All said:

Also, the problem with saying GR is wrong has NOTHING to do with your education or lack thereof. Please say it with me. The problem with saying GR is wrong is that you now have to show why GPS works, why time dilates in a gravitational field, why predictions of gravitational waves were correct, basically why the theory allows us to explain so much if it's so wrong. THAT is what you haven't come close to doing. And I don't think it's arrogant to baldly assert that your ideas are right in the face of so much science to the contrary. I think it's lazy, counterproductive, and a waste of time. YOU should be asking questions here, not trying to lecture people who actually work with atomic clocks and aerospace and cosmology, using mainstream physics every day.

My answer is that I put it down to a God thing. That is anyone trying to prevent the destruction of mankind is someone doing good. And if the outcome is positive it will be conducive of what I do. I get told quite often I am a good person. But I correct those saying this in that I'm only trying to meet my obligations (in relation to the circumstances that bring about the approvals). 

I see myself fighting in a war that can't be won. As an adult male my obligation to defend humankind, respectful of the millions before me that have gone into battle, win or lose. 

I believe I've got through this precious weeks lost but some credentials established. 

Everything you say above is correct if the product of misunderstanding. 

 

 

 

 

[Phi for All]

49 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

My answer is that I put it down to a God thing.

And ultimately, predictably, that's no answer at all for a science discussion. I don't know why you think it would be. We're looking for explanations we can trust, not ones we just have to put our faith in. 

[Greg A.]

On 7/27/2022 at 3:51 AM, swansont said:

I found this, which has our galaxy moving at 1.3 million mph wrt the cosmic microwave background.

https://www.businessinsider.in/science/news/earth-is-screaming-through-space-at-1-3-million-mph-a-simple-animation-by-a-former-nasa-scientist-shows-what-that-looks-like-/articleshow/71542580.cms

Earth orbits the sun at 66,600 mph, and the sun orbits the Milky Way at 514,500 mph, our solar system's speed relative to the CMB is about 827,000 mph. Zoom out further, and our entire galaxy is zipping through the CMB at about 1.3 million mph.

Of course, the earth orbiting the sun means sometimes the speed adds to the speed of the solar system's morion, and sometimes it's subtracted from it. Similarly, the speed of the solar system in the galactic rotation would sometimes add to or be subtracted from the speed of the galaxy WRT the CMB. Note that our speed WRT the CMB is not the same as the galaxy's speed. 

It's earth's velocity that matters and that is in effect unchanging. 13M mph in relation to the CBR. 

 

On 7/27/2022 at 3:51 AM, swansont said:

It also doesn't let you check to see if you are wrong. And yet when people who have studied these matters tell you that you are, you continue to insist that you are right.

 

Anyone who refers to gravity as a force is wrong. It is an effect. 

On 7/27/2022 at 3:51 AM, swansont said:

Without giving details such a discussion is pretty much worthless, and it also would have to do with how society works rather than the nature of time.

Then you have pretty much ignored most of what this experiment is about. Intellectual arrogance, intellectual dishonesty, and intellectual cowardice are examples of the barriers to change. 

On 7/27/2022 at 3:51 AM, swansont said:

 

Your refusal to share the prediction is why it's irrelevant. That decision is under your control, not anyone else's involved in this discussion.

I've refused nothing. I try and meet my obligations, which do not include satisfying anybody's curiosity. I will make the prediction as originator of this thread at the appropriate time, that's if that opportunity somehow finds a way around the barriers in place already. 

On 7/27/2022 at 3:51 AM, swansont said:

It's clear that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to physics, so how you come to this conclusion might fall under the Dunning-Kruger effect. I dismiss what you have to say because it is trivially wrong, and I've given feedback on how this is so. All you've done is tap-dance around and try to move the goalposts.

I've stuck with what I've been saying all along, and if anybody is tap-dancing it is yourself. 

On 7/27/2022 at 3:51 AM, swansont said:

The only question here is whether you really believe what you're peddling, or if you're just trolling. Every attempt to deflect inquiry rather than clarify points to the latter. 

I will continue to answer posts (and expect replies) until the present issue is resolved. 

16 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Velocity does not factor into the gravitational field equations, because it is irrelevant to the geometry of spacetime - or, to put it differently, relative motion is not a source of gravity.

I have difficulty in interpreting what it is you say, but despite that can see that what you appear to be saying is not in any way what I'm suggesting. Mass would decide the geometry of spacetime, velocity decides the convergence point of all matter within the spherical mass we call earth. How else does it get it's shape if not by the fourth dimension we call time?

16 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Where velocity does play a role is in determining which of the possible geodesics a test particle in free fall will follow. The geodesic equation is a system of partial differential equations - so, in order to find a particular solution, you need to supply boundary conditions. Initial velocity - as a vector - is usually one of these. It’s like selecting the correct geodesic out of all the possible ones. However, which ones are possible, and how exactly these look, is determined by the metric and the connection - ie the geometry of spacetime. And this has nothing to do with any velocities.

Your geodesics are not my converging  parallels? No doublespeak here?

16 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Lack of education isn’t an obstacle, as it can be remedied easily - these days, you can learn any topic you like using freely available resources online. This is especially true for maths and physics.

What is an obstacle is thinking you can simply dismiss a well-established model that you know little to nothing about, and replace it with an idea of your own based solely on it making sense to you. Surely you can see the problem yourself. You cannot visualise gravity in all its degrees of freedom - even I can’t do that, after spending many years on this. To this day I sometimes get surprised by totally unexpected and counterintuitive results, which one can only find using the maths. That’s how it is.

I'm visualizing time not gravity. 

The work has been done by lot's of smart people including Einstein.  I'm not adding anything other than a simple way to visualize it (which admittedly has not worked all that well).  

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

I've refused nothing. I try and meet my obligations, which do not include satisfying anybody's curiosity.

You don't understand science discussion either, apparently. We keep asking you to support what you claim, and you claim you're meeting those obligations. I think you've failed to explain anything to any degree of clarity. Four pages of "Look what I made up!"

[Intoscience]

6 hours ago, Greg A. said:

I will continue to answer posts (and expect replies) until the present issue is resolved.

The present issue is that you are advocating that we agree with your idea and those that refute it because not only are your ideas full of errors, you refuse to show supporting evidence.

 At the same time telling people (scientists) on a science forum that they are the ones who are wrong!

6 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Then you have pretty much ignored most of what this experiment is about. Intellectual arrogance, intellectual dishonesty, and intellectual cowardice are examples of the barriers to change

You should be looking in the mirror ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Markus Hanke]

8 hours ago, Greg A. said:

How else does it get it's shape if not by the fourth dimension we call time?

A planet is spherical (ignore angular momentum for now) because the geometry of the underlying spacetime has spherical symmetry. That means that the solutions of the geodesic equation depend only on the r-coordinate, but not on the angular coordinates. Thus, a free fall from rest will tend to be radially inwards towards the center of gravity.

8 hours ago, Greg A. said:

Your geodesics are not my converging  parallels? No doublespeak here?

I can’t be sure, because you’re using non-standard terminology. Geodesics are those curves in spacetime for which proper acceleration vanishes (a=0 at all times and at all points). These are the curves that are traced out by particles in free fall.

8 hours ago, Greg A. said:

I'm visualizing time not gravity. 

You cannot separate time from space in any meaningful sense - but spacetime as a whole can’t be visualised because it is 4D. So I’m really not sure what it is you’re doing, or what it has to do with velocity.