The Whole Dang Universe

[ScottTheSculptor]

they predicted that it would come from an unexpected vector

http://tinyurl.com/3hv4tnn

 

Please please please

Shoot it down.

 

It makes sense to me but *is* a logic model.

 

experimental data that already exists and that can confirm or deny would be nice. . .

 

Cool, I just got my theory kicked off of physics forum for being speculation.

Glad you guys have a place for the inquisitive mind . . .

Edited April 4, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor

[ScottTheSculptor]

I did get one good logical argument before getting booted.

What about radio galaxies, pulsars, radiating nebulae?

 

Thought they had me stumped . . .well i was for a minute

 

The jets in the galaxies and pulsars that we can identify are spewing time along with the jets.

Once in the time flow these do not decay at the rate that you would expect. I am not sure but I have some sketchy data that says that we don't know why we can see this light - it shouldn't have made it here.

This *would * be an explaination.

 

also

anyone know about seeing light coming from the galactic center? according to my theory it should be dark. . . .I kinda poked around but couldn't find the data.

 

?

 

Excuse any gross errors . . .I got up 4:30 yesterday and shoulda crashed by now. I'll check my logic tomorrow.

[swansont]

Cool, I just got my theory kicked off of physics forum for being speculation.

Glad you guys have a place for the inquisitive mind . . .

 

!

Moderator Note

Mind that you follow the rules. You're not off to the best start with hijacking another thread to advertise your theory

 

How would you falsify your theory? What testable predictions does it make?

 

If matter and antimatter from the two universes can mix, where is the 511 keV gamma signature from the continual e-e+ annihilation?

[ScottTheSculptor]

!

Moderator Note

Mind that you follow the rules. You're not off to the best start with hijacking another thread to advertise your theory

 

 

Apologies. I will stay in my defense now.

 

I wasn't advertising, I was trying to show that it can not be disproven.

 

 

How would you falsify your theory? What testable predictions does it make?

 

If matter and antimatter from the two universes can mix, where is the 511 keV gamma signature from the continual e-e+ annihilation?

 

The testable predicition is the absolute correlation with all airborne relativity studies - Hafele and Keating experiment and others. Sagnac correction is a bad patch to fix a broken theory.

There are other "unexplainable" phenomena in astrophysics - I have sketchy data, are radiowaves missing from towards the center of the galaxy?

In pure logic; shouldn't you welcome a theory that explains; dark energy, dark matter, gravity, time, and wave particle dualism over one that does not?

 

The matter can not mix. only anti-spacetime is being sent to the anti-universe.

 

 

 

(note; I am extremely logical and do not intend emotion, please do not infer any.)

 

Anyone have data concerning clocks on spacecraft?

 

My theory predicts that they be "mysterious".

 

I can not find the data.

 

Scientists love to talk about thing that they think that they have figured out, not so much about the unexplained.

--- <- indicates passage of time

Cool! http://tinyurl.com/3gd69g3

my theory explains spacecraft clock discrepencies. Clocks will run faster towards the sun and slower away from it. The data in the current discrepencies will also "not falsify" my theory.

Edited April 4, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor

[swansont]

The testable predicition is the absolute correlation with all airborne relativity studies - Hafele and Keating experiment and others. Sagnac correction is a bad patch to fix a broken theory.

There are other "unexplainable" phenomena in astrophysics - I have sketchy data, are radiowaves missing from towards the center of the galaxy?

In pure logic; shouldn't you welcome a theory that explains; dark energy, dark matter, gravity, time, and wave particle dualism over one that does not?

 

…

 

Anyone have data concerning clocks on spacecraft?

 

My theory predicts that they be "mysterious".

 

I can not find the data.

 

Scientists love to talk about thing that they think that they have figured out, not so much about the unexplained.

 

There are data in the paper. The Hafele-Keating experiment fits with theory, so if yours matches it, then how is it distinguishable from relativity? The H-K experiment analysis did not use Sagnac; that's another approach that yields the same answer. IOW, relativity has to be the problem, which leads us back to why experimental results are consistent with it. If you want more, you can look at GPS, which continually confirms relativity by yielding precise positioning and timing information. Where is the mystery? You need testable predictions that are different from the theory that we already have. What are they?

[ScottTheSculptor]

There are data in the paper. The Hafele-Keating experiment fits with theory, so if yours matches it, then how is it distinguishable from relativity? The H-K experiment analysis did not use Sagnac; that's another approach that yields the same answer. IOW, relativity has to be the problem, which leads us back to why experimental results are consistent with it. If you want more, you can look at GPS, which continually confirms relativity by yielding precise positioning and timing information. Where is the mystery? You need testable predictions that are different from the theory that we already have. What are they?

 

There are unexplained errors in the results. GPS time requires using the sagnac correction and "leap seconds" to correct the perceived time on the ground.

 

Relativity still rules and meshes perfectly with my theory. The only difference is that "the speed of light" is variable. If you are in a different orbit around the sun your "speed of light" is different. All the other rules hold.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

additional info:

 

I have a broken bit in my brain that makes it difficult to manipulate symbols. I can "describe" much of physics but can not do the math.

I would not believe you until you proved your logical argument. I expect the same in reverse.

But, fair warning.

I am *extremely* logical.

 

---

 

Writing down "leap seconds" fired off a logical extrapolation.

I have evidence of proof in leap seconds.

The orbit of the earth is elliptical. The annual leap second corrections forward and back correlate with my theory.

The slowly increasing rate of time matches with the energy consumption of the sun over time.

 

 

 

 

so far the the theory predicts/explains;

 

dark matter

dark energy

gravity

time

wave particle dualism

spacecraft clocks run faster when closer to the sun, slower when away.

long lived radio waves from "upwind" in time.

short lived radio wave from "downwind" in time

star types by matter/ELMA mix

proton magnetism

leap seconds

Why it takes starlight all that time to get here but doesn't decay.

 

 

How is your theory holding up?

Edited April 4, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor

[swansont]

There are unexplained errors in the results. GPS time requires using the sagnac correction and "leap seconds" to correct the percieved time on the ground.

 

What are these "unexplained errors?"

 

BTW, GPS doesn't use leap seconds. Leap seconds are added to UTC to make it match up with UT1.

 

 

Relativity still rules and meshes perfectly with my theory. The only difference is that "the speed of light" is variable. If you are in a different orbit around the sun your "speed of light" is different. All the other rules hold.

 

How would one test this?

 

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

additional info:

 

I have a broken bit in my brain that makes it difficult to manipulate symbols. I can "describe" much of physics but can not do the math.

I would not believe you until you proved your logical argument. I expect the same in reverse.

But, fair warning.

I am *extremely* logical.

 

---

 

Writing down "leap seconds" fired off a logical extrapolation.

I have evidence of proof in leap seconds.

The orbit of the earth is elliptical. The annual leap second corrections forward and back correlate with my theory.

The slowly increasing rate of time matches with the energy consumption of the sun over time.

 

What, exactly, does your theory predict about leap seconds?

 

Leap second corrections are not annual and though the ability exists, there have been none removed. They are preferentially added at the end of Dec or June, as needed, but the insertion is not on a regular schedule, e.g. from 1999-2004 no leap seconds were added

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

 

 

so far the the theory predicts/explains;

 

dark matter

dark energy

gravity

time

wave particle dualism

spacecraft clocks run faster when closer to the sun, slower when away.

long lived radio waves from "upwind" in time.

short lived radio wave from "downwind" in time

star types by matter/ELMA mix

proton magnetism

leap seconds

Why it takes starlight all that time to get here but doesn't decay.

 

Without the math, you really can't make such claims. You need specific predictions.

 

How is your theory holding up?

 

Just fine, thanks.

[Phi for All]

I have a broken bit in my brain that makes it difficult to manipulate symbols. I can "describe" much of physics but can not do the math.

Mathematics is the language of physics. I suggest that part of the problems you have with relativity and special relativity stem from not speaking this language. It's also possible that you're having trouble due to a lack of education in the area. Is it so hard to think you might have had a better grasp of the subject if you'd "[made] it that far in [your] studies" (from your PsychForum thread)?

 

I don't say this to be insulting. I consider myself to be logical also, but there are many things that don't make sense to me but might if I studied them more formally. This kind of rigorous study is usually the difference between theory (speculative idea) and theory (mathematically modeled, thoroughly tested predictive hypothesis that has undergone scrutiny from peers in its field).

[A Tripolation]

I have a broken bit in my brain that makes it difficult to manipulate symbols. I can "describe" much of physics but can not do the math.

I would not believe you until you proved your logical argument. I expect the same in reverse.

But, fair warning.

I am *extremely* logical.

 

Manipulating the symbols is one of the most important aspects of working in the field of Physics, and it is the reason most people are not able to do so. I can describe much of the concepts of upper level physics courses I haven't taken, but could I work out a solution, or critique the math used in QED? Goodness, no.

 

Proving ideas in physics isn't really about logic based arguments. You use logic to do certain things, yes, but more importantly, it's seeing if your theory and its math holds true when comparing it to tests and data.

[ScottTheSculptor]

What are these "unexplained errors?"

BTW, GPS doesn't use leap seconds. Leap seconds are added to UTC to make it match up with UT1.

How would one test this?

What, exactly, does your theory predict about leap seconds?

Leap second corrections are not annual and though the ability exists, there have been none removed. They are preferentially added at the end of Dec or June, as needed, but the insertion is not on a regular schedule, e.g. from 1999-2004 no leap seconds were added

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Leap_second

 

The data does not match exactly. why?

The data is already collected. All the clocks that have ever flown in space. from this we can find the time gradient.

 

The prediction is that leap second insertion corresponds to max and min radii to the sun.

Variation shows that time is not stable. Why? I propose time "wind".

 

 

 

Without the math, you really can't make such claims. You need specific predictions.

Just fine, thanks.

 

Yes. you are correct. That is why I am arguing it here.

And giving precise predictions.

 

You guys have the math.

 

Mathematics is the language of physics. I suggest that part of the problems you have with relativity and special relativity stem from not speaking this language. It's also possible that you're having trouble due to a lack of education in the area. Is it so hard to think you might have had a better grasp of the subject if you'd "[made] it that far in [your] studies" (from your PsychForum thread)?

 

I don't say this to be insulting. I consider myself to be logical also, but there are many things that don't make sense to me but might if I studied them more formally. This kind of rigorous study is usually the difference between theory (speculative idea) and theory (mathematically modeled, thoroughly tested predictive hypothesis that has undergone scrutiny from peers in its field).

 

This is a very logical argument.

 

I can speak in relativistic terms if you wish.

 

My education is substantial - but did not extend to sub-atomic interactions. Sorry but what I've read so far on the subject is mostly speculative.

 

I am here to propose the "story problems" for you to decide if my theory follows your math.

I can get quite detailed in my descriptions.

 

I am not insulted, this was an expected post.

[swansont]

The data does not match exactly. why?

The data is already collected. All the clocks that have ever flown in space. from this we can find the time gradient.

 

The prediction is that leap second insertion corresponds to max and min radii to the sun.

 

 

You have to explain specifically what is wrong with the data. "Does not match exactly" is way too vague.

 

Leap second insertions are scheduled on Dec 31 or Jun 30 but that's not when the discrepancy occurs. The discrepancy is identified ahead of time, and warning is given to give people a chance to prepare. According to your conjecture, why are leap seconds inserted only occasionally?

 

 

In reality, the correction is not because of a change in the rate of time, it's because of the slowing of the earth mainly from tidal friction with the moon.

 

Here's what the excess length of day looks like from 1973 through 2009

http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/earth-orientation/images_eo/lplot1.gif

 

Data are available

http://maia.usno.navy.mil/search/search.html

[ScottTheSculptor]

You have to explain specifically what is wrong with the data. "Does not match exactly" is way too vague.

Leap second insertions are scheduled on Dec 31 or Jun 30 but that's not when the discrepancy occurs. The discrepancy is identified ahead of time, and warning is given to give people a chance to prepare. According to your conjecture, why are leap seconds inserted only occasionally?

 

You have a theory to math the data. My theory also matches the data, just more closely.

Do you have a theory to explain the variation? I do.

 

I am not changing physics. Only the point of view.

My point of view fixes an awful lot of mysteries without really changing anything but "theories" not "Laws"

 

Gravity is time flowing passed the earth. All relativity experiments are "safe". Time is a 4th dimension one dimensional flow. It looks the same in all directions. But it does change over time. Unlike "old gravity". Any two normal matter bits in an anti-time flow will fall together. The history of this changing flow is written in the bones of the earth. It will not lie.

 

My theory mainly concerns time and gravity.

Can someone form a specific question concerning your theory of gravity and/or time?

I will translate from your theory to mine.

Edited April 4, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor

[swansont]

You have a theory to math the data. My theory also matches the data, just more closely.

Do you have a theory to explain the variation? I do.

 

Fine. Present the details that show this. (I don't see how you will, given that you have said you don't have/can't do the math.)

[ScottTheSculptor]

Fine. Present the details that show this. (I don't see how you will, given that you have said you don't have/can't do the math.)

 

Do you need math to say "the time flow varies with the energy consumption of the sun"?

 

Please extend your theory of the variation.

 

Or not.

 

---

 

there is some fun calculus coming . . .(not fun for me).

 

---

 

Sidetrack; How many books have you read today? I'm on my fifth.

---

Okay, I'm full. Got to go take a nap. Why would anyone think that multi-colored text was a good idea?

Gives me a headache. I should have enough to tackle a gravity equation.

I'll check back later . . .

 

 

 

 

Next question please.

Edited April 4, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor

[md65536]

so far the the theory predicts/explains;

...

 

spacecraft clocks run faster when closer to the sun, slower when away.

Isn't this the opposite of SR, GR, and experimental observations involving spacecraft?

 

Wouldn't spacecraft clocks appear to us to tick slower (relative to ours) due to increased gravitational field nearer the sun?

Moreover, near the sun the craft would move with higher relative speed, and thus be subject to greater time dilation than when farther away?

 

I've got this backward myself a million billion times, and it's always due to having an intuitive but only partial grasp on the ideas of relativity while misunderstanding the complicated details.

Edited April 4, 2011 by md65536

[ScottTheSculptor]

Isn't this the opposite of SR, GR, and experimental observations involving spacecraft?

 

Wouldn't spacecraft clocks appear to us to tick slower due to increased gravitational field nearer the sun?

Moreover, near the sun the craft would move with higher relative speed, and thus be subject to greater time dilation than when farther away?

 

I've got this backward myself a million billion times, and it's always due to having an intuitive but only partial grasp on the ideas of relativity while misunderstanding the complicated details.

 

Maybe your brain was trying to tell you something

 

Didn't quite nod off before I realized the math story problem. I usually need to "soak" that much data.

 

All the math is the same.

 

You get to throw out both "rotational relativistic" & Sagnac. You get more accurate results. They are both "patches" to extend Einstien.

 

The problem is just one of flux.

 

The sun is the drain/"charge", the radius of the sphere is the mean orbit of the earth, and the "flow of time" is the speed of light at the mean orbit.

The radius changes C.

Drop in your equations.

Is that enough?

 

 

Check your data, the "corrected" clocks run faster only towards the sun - this is *after* applying Rotational relativity and sagnac.

 

Back to the nap . . .

---

dang it. I want to nap.

 

I haven't quite "got" the differential equations for describing the path of a point on the surface of the earth through the time flux.

With that ground based high accuracy clocks can confirm.

 

Back to nap . . . nope, the rotational relativistic and sagnac correction will give you an approximation of the time gradient .... the real spacecraft data will get a better number. Solar observations may allow us to predict variations. It will be pretty much a plane in the ecliptic. Pulsars show that time can jet out of the poles of stars.

Should be a flux equation to see that no mass is exchanged . . .more later

 

NO really...NAP

Edited April 4, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor

[swansont]

Do you need math to say "the time flow varies with the energy consumption of the sun"?

 

Yes. What is the direction of the variation? Magnitude? Is it linear?

 

What's the connection between energy consumption of the sun and time at some remote point? You said it depends on the position of the earth in its orbit, which might imply that it depends on the flux from the sun, not the energy consumption of the sun.

[ScottTheSculptor]

Yes. What is the direction of the variation? Magnitude? Is it linear?

 

What's the connection between energy consumption of the sun and time at some remote point? You said it depends on the position of the earth in its orbit, which might imply that it depends on the flux from the sun, not the energy consumption of the sun.

 

Oops accidently erased most of my message.

Refresh often I tend to edit way to much.

First goof.

 

Time is gravity in my model Use the mass of the sun and the flux is gravity [note from future: nope on the gravity- all "flow"].

---

there is a density discrepency in the planets, closer in are denser that calculated, farther out are less dense than calculated.

 

Solar Mass Variations are the variability. They should map in time with our clock discrepencies

 

 

and I here the question "where does the earths time/gravity go?" Earth is in the path of the fourth dimension one dimensional flow not at the drain.

 

Damn!

C is variable for the path to the solar mass - -break out the brains on this one . . .

 

We are back to calculating the flux to get the gradient.

It should be nice and smooth?

Can we get a curve through the planetary density discrepencies? Just work out the "local C"?

 

As usual . . .can't find good data in the "fog" - two decimal places . . .

http://www.mesacc.ed...et-density.html [note from future: nope, no hard data on composition].

 

 

Should be a simple exponential? (I really suck at math) linear?

 

The flux and gravity have to be connected . . .

---

see if the planetary density discrepency curve matches gravity[note from future: nope on the gravity]?

---

Starting with our "speed of light" and dropping it into the sun? That just seems like an awful big number next to the star . . .but I'm toatally guessing.

 

--

The rate of time use and mass of the sun are probably not connected.[note from future: finally got it right!].

 

It's more about the "fuel usage"

---

the rate of nuclear reactions? the mass conversion rate of the star (directly connected to rate of time leaving the star to the anti-universe)

That should be linear. Yes, linear.

---

the rate grows slowly over time. we have some of that evidence in the earth.

The possible uneven "consumption of time" over the surface of the sun will "cause a fog of error",.

Well, we do have some awesome spacecraft watching the sun . . .

--

Mass consumption would be exponential, we are just on the long ramp there.

Practically linear.

---

Had a thought. If we have unseen jets of time coming out of the poles of our sun (ecliptic?why?) then the mass consumption alone will not account for all of the flow.

---

Here's a good "fallout". The time flow creates magnetism. We see the "free electrons" move and came up with all kinds of toys. The proton magnetism mystery is solved with this theory. The magnetic fields of planets are from the anti-time flow interacting with *all* normal matter and creating "ripples in spacetime". The nearly 2000 times heavier proton is just not as affected as the tiny electron. Ditto as you get more massive. But hugely smaller fields. . . rocks would have formed in the varying time flow.

---

So, I am back to needing raw spacecraft clock data. Hmm, . . .I don't seem to have any of that. And wouldn't know how to put symbols to it.

Or!

Someone to work out the math for the earth surface based superclocks and compare.

They must be using "rotational relativity to correct . . .but seeing daily oscillations.

---

fantasy: Gas giants capable of "converting/spitting out" time? Any polar flyovers with clock data?

---

 

 

so far the the theory predicts/explains;

 

dark matter

dark energy

gravity

time

wave particle dualism

spacecraft clocks run faster when closer to the sun, slower when away.

long lived radio waves from "upwind" in time.

short lived radio wave from "downwind" in time

star types by matter/ELMA mix

proton magnetism

leap seconds

Why it takes starlight all that time to get here but doesn't decay.

Planetary density mystery

the death of rotational relativity (crumpled)

Small relativity variations in all clocks. (orbit, spin, solar "surges")

mapping solar mass variations to time "corrections"

---

 

Ponder the solution. Do you think mathematics would have gotten here? It's been 12 days since I sat down to solve "dark energy" . . . this is where I'm at - with just logic and old data.

 

---

 

 

 

Can you imagine how wierd it is to have a *really* good model and not be able to write it down?

Edited April 5, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor

[swansont]

UT1 variations aren't linear, and are due to rotational changes, i.e. the earth is a poor clock. Atomic time doesn't reflect these variations.

[ScottTheSculptor]

UT1 variations aren't linear, and are due to rotational changes, i.e. the earth is a poor clock. Atomic time doesn't reflect these variations.

ooo

 

that's good.

 

Let me think . . . .

---

wouldn't "rotational relativity" account for the variation?

You'd have to carefully plot for *exact* orbital changes . . .but we have the positioning information for that.

 

What explaination do you give for the non-lineraity of UT1 over time?

In my model it must vary and *be* nonlinear. It also accounts for "time speeding up".

---

 

 

(you do realize that you are arguing to keep "dark energy"?)

 

 

---

whatever happened to "solar polar"? I could use that data about now.

Edited April 5, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor

[ajb]

(you do realize that you are arguing to keep "dark energy"?)

 

No, swansont is, quite convincingly, arguing that you do not have any "solution to the dark energy question".

[swansont]

ooo

 

that's good.

 

Let me think . . . .

---

wouldn't "rotational relativity" account for the variation?

You'd have to carefully plot for *exact* orbital changes . . .but we have the positioning information for that.

 

No. The rotational effects and gravitational effects cancel, because the rotation deforms the earth (it's an oblate spheroid), so it has to be due to the variations alone, and that's tiny. Excess LOD fluctuations are less than a millisecond per day, so at an equatorial speed of ~450 m/s, that's a change of a half a meter per day, or a speed fluctuation of 5e-6 m/s, making the time dilation a couple of parts in 10^28. Way too small to see in atomic clocks.

 

What explaination do you give for the non-lineraity of UT1 over time?

In my model it must vary and *be* nonlinear. It also accounts for "time speeding up".

 

Lots of things change the angular momentum of the earth. The overall effect is the moon and tidal friction, but variations come from many sources. Weather is a notable factor — rotation of the atmosphere (high and low pressure systems), mass distribution of water (clouds) and precipitation (snow and ice stick around for a while) moves water from low latitudes to higher latitudes. All of these change the moment of inertia of the planet, and since angular momentum is conserved in the absence of an external torque, if you change the moment of inertia you will see a change in the rotational speed.

 

(D H usually comes along at this point and corrects any oversimplifications I've made)

[ScottTheSculptor]

So I'm back to coming up with math.

I can logically remove all of the mysteries but the "belief" is in the math and not the logic.

Matches perfectly with my cognitive theory (let's not argue *that* here).

And explains why physics hadn't worked this problem out decades ago.

 

Okay,

 

I guess I need to find logical children, let them see my theory, have them grow up to be mathematicians and then *they* can make you "believe".

 

Or,

 

Someone can help me with my math.

Edited April 5, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor

[ajb]

So I'm back to coming up with math.

I can logically remove all of the mysteries but the "belief" is in the math and not the logic.

 

Of course, mathematics and logic are not mutually exclusive. What people will ask of you is to make logical deductions from your "theory". To do this you will need to perform calculations within your theory. Ideally, the calculations should correspond to things you would hope to see in an experiment. Here by theory we mean a mathematical model.

 

 

Matches perfectly with my cognitive theory (let's not argue *that* here).

And explains why physics hadn't worked this problem out decades ago.

 

By theory any physicist will expect you to mean a mathematical model.

 

I guess I need to find logical children, let them see my theory, have them grow up to be mathematicians and then *they* can make you "believe".

 

You need to present a theory in the correct way for us to attempt to digest and criticise.

 

 

Someone can help me with my math.

 

Plenty of people on this forum can offer advice, however the hard work is with you.

[ScottTheSculptor]

I think I can get to it with this;

 

"the rotational relativistic and sagnac correction will give you an approximation of the time gradient"

 

I think with that approximate time gradient I can give reasonably accurate numbers for the necessary corrections to Voyager and Messenger clocks.

Without using rotational relativity.

 

I'll go hit the books and struggle with trying to get to the "math" that way.

It would be enough to convince those that *know* rotational relativity is suspect.

 

This is the only "difference" between the two theories.

 

The most accurate data on relativistic rotation correction is near earth.

GPS

 

I'm going to try an "cheat" my way around by just using the "correction" at solar distant mins and maxes . . .if I can find the data . . . .

---

 

After that then the only difference is dropping a simple linear equation in for C , based on distance to the sun ;-)

---

So just plotting all the time corrections based on distance to the sun will give the time gradient.

---

The rate will vary by matter conversion in the sun over time. A "correction factor" based on this may be necessary.

---

Edited April 5, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor