I discovered a working formula structure of Relativity that works in a spreadsheet, complete with gravity, would like people to look at it

[mississippichem]

seasnake,

 

You should do some reading on dimensional analysis before you try to improve on Einstein's GR equations. For example, velocity is defined in units of displacement per time [e.g. meters/second]. If find a value for velocity that is in units of, lets say, newtons per meter [N/m], then I've absolutely done something wrong; no matter how I want to look at it.

[seasnake]

sorry had V = J / C when it should have read V = J / L

 

This has nothing to do with volts; none of the units in [imath]E=mc^2[/imath] are volts. You cannot expect that when you multiply an energy by time, you get energy.

 

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.

Edited January 25, 2011 by seasnake

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The Volt is not a unit of energy.

[seasnake]

The Volt is not a unit of energy.

 

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.

Edited January 25, 2011 by seasnake

[ajb]

I took the formula of the volt as defined upon wikipedia and applied it to the same formula structure that I use for energy.

 

Why not pick up a book on physics?

 

I have said this many times before. I like Wikipedia and it is a great resource for us all. However, reading a couple of articles from it is simply not enough to start working in theoretical physics.

 

It is great you are reading this and thinking. Don't stop doing that. Just be aware a lot more work, and mathematics is needed to work in physics.

[Svetoslav Pavlov]

I read part of your theory. I find it intriguing. Check my posts for linearilizing

http://circlesinair.wordpress.com

[swansont]

swansont, I am not exactly sure what all the effects of a change in how a second is measured would effect everything.

 

I, OTOH, am aware of the things that affect the realization of the standard of the second. I work in the field, and you're basically saying my colleagues don't know what they're doing and are really lucky that things just happen to work out.

[seasnake]

I, OTOH, am aware of the things that affect the realization of the standard of the second. I work in the field, and you're basically saying my colleagues don't know what they're doing and are really lucky that things just happen to work out.

 

 

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.

Edited January 25, 2011 by seasnake

[swansont]

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.

 

"I contend that the correction they made still failed to fix the dilution problem at all" and "I'm just saying that if the base measurements, such as that of a second, were measured in a correct way that did not suffer from sizing problem issues that fall along the lines of different sized feet based upon the individual to which they belong, that such correction parameters wouldn't be necessary." are much stronger statements than saying you wonder if this is like the sizing problem.

 

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.

[seasnake]

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?

Edited January 25, 2011 by seasnake

[swansont]

----------------------- 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.

 

The correction is for the gravitational potential, not the atmospheric conditions (though electronics can be susceptible to temperature and humidity changes, so you put your clocks in a nice environment inside a building). The correction is the level of a part in 10^16 per meter change in elevation, which is about 10 picoseconds a day error. We have only recently had clocks that could actually measure differences less than ~ a meter on short time scales. And time transfer signal noise is above that level, so currently you can only compare your great clock locally.

[seasnake]

<BR>The correction is for the gravitational potential, not the atmospheric conditions (though electronics can be susceptible to temperature and humidity changes, so you put your clocks in a nice environment inside a building). The correction is the level of a part in 10^16 per meter change in elevation, which is about 10 picoseconds a day error. We have only recently had clocks that could actually measure differences less than ~ a meter on short time scales. And time transfer signal noise is above that level, so currently you can only compare your great clock locally.<BR>

 

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).

Edited January 26, 2011 by seasnake

[swansont]

Yes, the duration of the second would change if the gravitational potential changed. But the point is that it would change in a predictable way, such that if you wanted to do a comparison with a clock in a different potential, you could do it. The adjustment for elevation is the adjustment for gravity; they aren't different things.

[seasnake]

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.

Edited January 26, 2011 by seasnake

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Most atomic clocks have their insides at vacuum, so the atmosphere isn't particularly relevant.

 

If someone adjusted the definition of the second to account for gravity, they'd have to re-adjust it whenever moving anywhere with different gravity. And, of course, that'd require actually adjusting the rate at which a clock runs whenever you move it to new conditions, to make it match the "new" standard.

[seasnake]

Most atomic clocks have their insides at vacuum, so the atmosphere isn't particularly relevant.

 

If someone adjusted the definition of the second to account for gravity, they'd have to re-adjust it whenever moving anywhere with different gravity. And, of course, that'd require actually adjusting the rate at which a clock runs whenever you move it to new conditions, to make it match the "new" standard.

 

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.

Edited January 26, 2011 by seasnake

[swansont]

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?

 

They have. It's defined on the geoid (idealized sea level), which is why you have to compensate for changes in elevation.

[seasnake]

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

 

 

[apricimo]

Seasnake.... Make a video with some type of screen recorded and a voice over and explain what you have in your equations and what you think they mean and their implications. Post it on you tube and let us know when you have done so.

 

When people try to decipher your work and it is not in a published format people get cranky.

 

It's easy to do.. For a mac screenflow works great... I don't know about windows...