A quantum theory of gravity [Archive] - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

Uclock

22-October-2006, 05:25 PM

Please forgive they way I have presented these equations. I seem to be having trouble entering equations onto the site so I have used a fortran style.

As this part of the website is here to air ATM theories I want to put forward a purely geometric quantum theory of gravity whose value matches that Newtonian gravity within the confines of the solar system where we know Newtonian gravity works well (except for the pioneer anomaly).

To do this I will only use simple geometry but a paradigm shift in thinking is required. I will contend that the presence of matter (therefore energy) generates a super-luminal quantum field around itself and a mass-less particle considered at rest, will generate the largest quantum field.

Mass will have a retarding effect on the generation of an objects quantum field and the base of any measurement will be taken to be that of the quantum field of a mass-less particle considered at rest.

I assert that the radius of a quantum field generated by a mass-less particle in one second will be equal to ‘c’ or 299 792 458 m giving a volume of V = 4/3*pi*c^3 and here V = Phi = 1.129 x 10^26 m^3 s^-1.

To make this ATM a quantum theory I need a time and space quanta which will be 1/Phi = 8.86 x 10^-27 m^-3 s^-1.

Space will be measured by the radius of the quantum field and time will be measured by the volume of the quantum field. This simple contention will separate time and space during measurement but space-time will remain one entity.

As I said earlier mass will retard or distort the quantum field from its true value. I will use the volume of the distortion of the Earth’s quantum field caused by the Earth’s mass to gain a space-time constant ‘STC’. I will use it to calculate the quantum field distortion caused by any mass and give an example of the Sun’s quantum gravity field.

At the Earth surface and according to Newton, gravity has a distortion of g = 9.81 m s-2 so the volume of this distortion caused by the Earth will be Vde = (4/3*pi*(Re + g)^3) – (4/3*pi*Re^3) = 5.01 x 10^15 m^3 where Re = the radius of the Earth.

Now I will simply divide the volume of Earth’s distortion by the mass of the Earth to gain the space-time constant, so STC = Vde/Me = 8.386 x 10^-10 where ME is the mass of the Earth.

Now let’s see if this geometric quantum method can match Newtonian gravity for the gravity field of the Sun.

As stated earlier the base of any measurement will be the flow of a quantum field generated by a mass-less particle considered at rest. Here space is ST = ((3*t*Phi)/(4*pi))^1/3 where ‘t’ is the time input in seconds.

The Sun’s quantum field will be retarded by a small amount because of its mass. The volume of the distortion of the Sun’s quantum field will be Vds = Ms x STC = 1.67 x 10^21 m3 where Ms = Mass of the Sun. Now I need to convert this value to time using the space-time quanta.

The time distortion for the Sun will be tds = (1/Phi)*Vds = 1.48 x 10^-5 s. This means the Sun’s quantum field is retarded by tdS and the flow of the Sun’s quantum field itself will be ts = t – tds.

Using this method the measurement of space and time are completely interchangeable. It will take a mass-less particle considered at rest t = ((4*pi*Rs^3)/(3*Phi)) = 12.49 s, where Rs = radius of the Sun, for the quantum field to reach the surface of the Sun from its centre of mass so ST = (3*t*Phi/4*pi)^1/3 = 6.956 x 10^8 m.

The retardation of the Sun’s own quantum field will be STS = ((3*ts*Phi)/(4*pi)) = 6.955 997 256 79 x 10^8 m giving a quantum distortion value for the Sun’s gravity of qgs = ST – STs = 274.321 m s^-2 if we check this with Newtonian gravity Ngs = G*Ms / Rs^2 = 274.321 m s^-2 and as you can see they are in agreement.

Combining the geometric equations and checking the value of the Sun’s gravity at 1 AU we have ST = (3*(((4/(3*phi))*pi*AU^3)*phi)/(4*pi))^(1/3) = 1.495 978 706 91 x 10^11 and
STs = ((3*(((4/(3*phi))*pi*AU^3)-TdisSun)*phi)/(4*pi))^(1/3) = 1.495 978 706 909 94 x 10^11

Giving a value for the distortion of quantum gravity at 1 AU from the Sun of qgs = ST -STs =5.93 x 10^-3 m s^-2

The value for Newtonian gravity will be Ngs = GMs/AU^2 = 5.93 x 10^-3 m s^-2.

Newtonian gravity and quantum gravity differ by only 9.1 x 10^-9 m s^-2 over this distance.

This method of calculating quantum gravity remains very close to Newtonian gravity for any planet or moon over any distance.

If anyone would like to test this for their self, I will be happy to provide the equations in a form that can be directly entered into the free Console calculator which is accurate to 80sf and can be downloaded at http://ccalc.shanebweb.com/

This paradigm shift in thinking about time and space will take some people by surprise but the mathematics work and work well. I hope you will try it yourself and that it gives everyone food for thought.

Nereid

22-October-2006, 11:33 PM

Tensor

23-October-2006, 04:25 AM

I assert that the radius of a quantum field generated by a mass-less particle in one second will be equal to ‘c’ or 299 792 458 m giving a volume of V = 4/3*pi*c^3 and here V = Phi = 1.129 x 10^26 m^3 s^-1.

To make this ATM a quantum theory I need a time and space quanta which will be 1/Phi = 1.86 x 10^-27 m^-3 s^-1.

I don't have a lot of time, but this one was glaring. Leaving aside the dimensional values, when I invert the numerical portion of your V (and Phi) value, I get 8.85 X 10-27, not 1.86. Getting back to the dimensional values, how exactly do your dimensional quantities go from m3s-1 to m-3s-1 by inverting them?

Uclock

23-October-2006, 01:09 PM

How does this ATM idea account for:

a) the advance of the perihelion of Mercury (and Venus, and Eros, and ...)?

b) the deflection of 'light' as it passes by the Sun (and Jupiter)?

c) the data from binary pulsars, esp the double pulsar, and the observations which earned Hulse and Taylor their Nobel prize?

What do you predict the results of Gravity Probe B will be?

Hi Nereid

Before I attempt to answer these questions I must reiterate that I am an amateur not a professional. The long climb from conception of the idea to a working mathematical model has been hard and I do not posses all the answers to everything about physics because this concept is so new it will take years of study to find all the answers.
I have great chunks of my education missing so in each area of study I have to start from scratch but the point here is the concept has given me a working model of quantum gravity that matches Newtonian physics within the confines of the solar system.
My main area of study with this concept has been acceleration and inertia and this has been very productive from my point of view.
As far as your questions above are concerned, as you can appreciate, if a super-luminal quantum field is generated by the Sun, or other stars and planets, then the space around them will also be rotating and twisting. Mercury happens to be close to the Sun so this should account for the advance of the perihelion. Gravity is still a distortion of space as it is in GR but space becomes local to the object.
If you take a little time to think about the consequences of the concept you might find it fits the observational evidence very well.
I have been waiting in anticipation for the results of Gravity Probe B since launch. It is a wonderful technical achievement by all those concerned. If I am right and each and every object in this Universe generates a quantum field then I would expect the frame dragging value to be above what is expected for GR.
I wish I had the mathematical skills to give an exact predicted value but I haven’t. If the results for frame dragging are above what is expected by GR then perhaps trained physicists might engage with the concept and study the consequences for their self.
As an amateur with very limited mathematical skills I can only take this concept so far.
I would love a professional to see how far they can take this but up until now, and as far as I am aware, no other person has come up with a theory of quantum gravity that matches Newton gravity within the confines of the solar system so I will continue to study this concept on my own with the limited tools I have available, which includes my incomplete education.
Thank you for at least looking at it.

Uclock

23-October-2006, 01:29 PM

tusenfem

23-October-2006, 04:05 PM

To nitpick a little further, you define the volume V as that which a photon can "create" in one second, and therefore your volume has to be dimension m3 and not m3s-1.

secondly

At the Earth surface and according to Newton, gravity has a distortion of g = 9.81 m s-2 so the volume of this distortion caused by the Earth will be Vde = (4/3*pi*(Re + g)^3) – (4/3*pi*Re^3) = 5.01 x 10^15 m^3 where Re = the radius of the Earth.

Well, here you are adding the Earths radius Re (unit m) to the Earth's gravitational accelerations g (unit m s-2) which you cannot do.

Argos

23-October-2006, 04:36 PM

I seem to be having trouble entering equations onto the site.

The remedy for that would be Tex or MathML (preferably) support.

Nereid

23-October-2006, 04:39 PM

The remedy for that would be Tex or MathML (preferably) support.I am Nereid and I support this message*.

*If you have not been in the USA around the time of an election, this joke will go over your head (I laughed myself silly the first time I encountered one of these, on a trip to the US, years ago).

Tensor

23-October-2006, 04:44 PM

Hi Tensor

I could describe this as being a bit picky but unfortunately I have used = instead of  because I seem to difficulty in entering symbols on this site.
One day I might find out how to do it right! As far as your assumption that the math is wrong I can assure you that phi = 4/3*pi*c^3 = 1.128 627 734 036 37^26 so 1/phi = 8.860 317 444 297 14^-27. Try it yourself.

Hey Uclock.

I did, that's why I pointed it out. In your post, you gave the numerical value of the iverted phi as 1.129. I pointed out it should be 8.85. Now you are saying it's 8386 (which is close enough to the value I provided not to matter). So which one is it? Your original value, or the one you presented above?

You have a point with the dimensional values and this only comes down to my lack of mathematical skills. But the concept is original and it has provided a quantum theory of gravity that matches or very closely matches Newtonian gravity and I defy anyone who says different. You may be a professional, I don’t know, but I would urge you to take a time to run the math properly.

Thank you also for taking a quick look.

As tusenfem points out, there are other problems with dimensions. If you had done a dimensional analysis on the idea, you would have realize the the units are completely off and lead to operations that are not allowed. Unless, of course, you are redefining the units, but then you should mention that and define all the units before using them in the equations. As it stands now, the idea does nothing more than provide some numbers that come close, arrived at through forbidden operations. Nothing more than a coincidence.

Thank you also for taking a quick look.

Not a problem. Unfortunately, that is all I have time for at this time.

Celestial Mechanic

23-October-2006, 04:44 PM

The remedy for that would be Tex or MathML (preferably) support.
I have always found it ironic that the World Wide Web, which owes its origin to CERN, a scientific establishment, has never had adequate support for display and typesetting of scientific equations. I guess the original goal was to have a text-only hypertext front-end for serving up TeX files of the papers where the math really was!

Uclock

23-October-2006, 05:50 PM

To nitpick a little further, you define the volume V as that which a photon can "create" in one second, and therefore your volume has to be dimension m3 and not m3s-1.

secondly

Quote:
At the Earth surface and according to Newton, gravity has a distortion of g = 9.81 m s-2 so the volume of this distortion caused by the Earth will be Vde = (4/3*pi*(Re + g)^3) – (4/3*pi*Re^3) = 5.01 x 10^15 m^3 where Re = the radius of the Earth.

Well, here you are adding the Earths radius Re (unit m) to the Earth's gravitational accelerations g (unit m s-2) which you cannot do.

It is the understanding of time and space according to known physics that is the problem, not the way I have presented it. Time is measured by seconds and space is measured by metres. In this concept the volume of time generated creates space. Space is not a fixed three dimensional metric as it is in GR, here it is a multitude of flowing dynamic fields.
An amount of space is created by every object in a given period of time that is why both m and seconds are used. In the case a mass-less particle considered at rest, it generates a given volume (m^3) in one second.
As stated in the concept, time is measured by the fixed flow of the volume and space is measured by the radius of that volume. Time and space are the same entity so this idea that they are completely separate is nonsense in my opinion.
By all means stick with what you know but no other theory has ever explained the flow of time, unless you can point me to one.
It is true that three dimensional space is measured in m^3 but according to this concept, space in created in a given amount of time that is why I have used m^3 s^-1.
I have divided space by a given amount of time, in this case one second.
If space and time are a dynamic field as the concept suggest and not fixed then logically you can add subtract, divide and multiply both in m and s. You need to grasp the concept and then maybe you will see where I’m coming from.
I agree in known physics you cannot interchange these dimensions but this theory is not within known physics yet still it can match Newtonian gravity.
Acceleration is just a distortion of space-time in this concept and I have shown it is possible to measure this distortion by volume and use it to retard the quantum field. I will ask you to try to understand the concept before criticising the way I have used the units, if that is ok with you.

Uclock

23-October-2006, 06:26 PM

I did, that's why I pointed it out. In your post, you gave the numerical value of the iverted phi as 1.129. I pointed out it should be 8.85. Now you are saying it's 8386 (which is close enough to the value I provided not to matter). So which one is it? Your original value, or the one you presented above?

No I did not give the inverted value of Phi as 1.129^26 nor have I said the value is 8386 (whatever that is).

I gave the inverted value of Phi as 1/Phi = 1.86^-27 when it should read 8.86^-27 (2dp) it is just a typing error, just as you have missed the ‘n’ out of ‘inverted’. Please don’t nitpick, it does not get us anywhere.
In my original post I rounded up the inverted Phi value to 2dp. To clarify, again, in this concept Phi = 4/3*pi*c^3 = 1.12862773403637e26, rounded to 1.129e26 (3dp) so the inverse of this is 1/Phi = 8.86031744429714e-27 when rounded up, 8.86e-27 (2dp). I hope that clears that up.

As tusenfem points out, there are other problems with dimensions. If you had done a dimensional analysis on the idea, you would have realize the the units are completely off and lead to operations that are not allowed. Unless, of course, you are redefining the units, but then you should mention that and define all the units before using them in the equations.

When dealing with time and space we are dealing with the same entity, unless you are saying time and space are not the same entity.
There is no need to redefine the units. I just use them in an unconventional manor because this concept is unconventional.

As it stands now, the idea does nothing more than provide some numbers that come close, arrived at through forbidden operations. Nothing more than a coincidence.

Is that right, so all I have done is provide some numbers that come close, a pure coincidence, yet it can match Newtonian gravity. Because I have used an unconventional approach you decide it can be dismissed without further investigation. Very scientific!

I don’t want this to turn into a slanging match because that’s pointless.

Tensor

23-October-2006, 07:06 PM

No I did not give the inverted value of Phi as 1.129^26 nor have I said the value is 8386 (whatever that is).

I gave the inverted value of Phi as 1/Phi = 1.86^-27 when it should read 8.86^-27 (2dp) it is just a typing error, just as you have missed the ‘n’ out of ‘inverted’. Please don’t nitpick, it does not get us anywhere.
In my original post I rounded up the inverted Phi value to 2dp. To clarify, again, in this concept Phi = 4/3*pi*c^3 = 1.12862773403637e26, rounded to 1.129e26 (3dp) so the inverse of this is 1/Phi = 8.86031744429714e-27 when rounded up, 8.86e-27 (2dp). I hope that clears that up.

Yes it does, I compounded the error by misquoting your orginal 1.86 in my second post. My apologies for my misquote.

When dealing with time and space we are dealing with the same entity, unless you are saying time and space are not the same entity.

They are a combined entity, that are measured with different dimensions. When doing the the different calculations, the dimensions have to come out correctly.

There is no need to redefine the units. I just use them in an unconventional manor because this concept is unconventional.

This is just flat our wrong. If you are going to use the dimensions unconventionally, you have redefinded them. Which you have to explain when you are presenting your idea. And even then, your dimensions have to come out correctly when you do your calculations.

Is that right, so all I have done is provide some numbers that come close, a pure coincidence, yet it can match Newtonian gravity. Because I have used an unconventional approach you decide it can be dismissed without further investigation. Very scientific!

I suggest your reread my first few words:

As it stands now....

So again, as it stands now, with your "unconventional" usage, the dimensions in your calculations do not work. As a result, your calculations are wrong. With the wrong calculations all you have a coincidence. I've looked at one part of your idea, tusenfem look at another. We both have found dimensional errors in your calculations. This shows your calculations to be wrong. As a result, your idea isn't viable as it is. I did not dismiss it out of hand. There were mathematical and logical reasons for dismissing it. And, yes, I consider that scientific. Much more so than throwing equations together, with wrong dimensions and then getting upset when those calculations are show to be wrong.

I don’t want this to turn into a slanging match because that’s pointless.

There is nothing to slang. Either your equations are correct, or they are wrong. If they are wrong, there is nothing to your idea, no matter how close you get to Newtonian gravity. Your equations, as they stand right now, are wrong.

Uclock

23-October-2006, 11:25 PM

The equations are not wrong. A given volume of quantum field (time) m^3 is generated each second, (per second s^-1). What other way can you put it?

Time and space are the same entity therefore all calculations should be completely interchangeable and with this concept they are completely interchangeable.

The concept is not wrong and the equations are not wrong. Gravity, acceleration and inertia are all the same in this concept there is no difference between them, they are all a distortion of space-time.

Perhaps it is best if I use the example of acceleration in free space, well away from any gravitational field.

When you accelerate at 1g in free space you mimic the gravitational field of the Earth at the surface of the Earth, you still feel a force, the same force as you would feel here on the surface of the Earth. According to known physics the illusive Higgs field is supposed to be responsible but this is not the case.

If an astronaut was in deep space well away from the influence of gravity and his space craft began to accelerate at 1g he has velocity within his own quantum field, he could walk around on the rear bulkhead just as he walks on the surface of the Earth there is no difference.

In this concept his quantum field has collapsed by 9.81 m and the centre of his quantum field has moved 9.81 metres below him or in this case 9.81 m from his centre of mass and behind the spacecraft. When his spacecraft ceases acceleration his quantum field is realigned with his centre of mass and his field re-expands to its natural size and because he has no velocity within his own quantum field he will float around weightless.

We all generate our own quantum field, you, me, the cup sitting on your desk. Every object or particle in this Universe generates a quantum field.
The way acceleration is explained in our text books leaves a lot to be desired and here is a typical example of acceleration due to gravity taken from such a text book.

‘In the absence of air resistance, an object falling freely under the influence of the Earth’s gravity, close to the surface of the Earth, experiences an acceleration of about 9.81 m s-2 in the downward direction.’

This description is really a description of the rate of increasing velocity towards the Earth (as viewed from an observer’s inertial frame of reference), second by second and is described as acceleration towards the Earth. But we are held still by the surface of the Earth and have no observable velocity. However, according to the concept we do have velocity within our own quantum space-time field.

The retarded quantum field of the Earth or the Earth’s distorted quantum field, which ever way you like, causes our own quantum field to be pulled off alignment from our centre of mass and collapses by 9.81 m for the first second of its generation. It is exactly the same as acceleration in free space. In both cases we have velocity within our own quantum field. Time and space are the same entity and by keeping these dimensions separate you will never understand space-time.

I still maintain the equations are correct and are valid for any object with mass.

Tensor

24-October-2006, 04:21 AM

I still maintain the equations are correct and are valid for any object with mass.

You can maintain this all you want, but until the dimensionallity is fixed, by definitions or correcting the equations so the dimnesionallity works out, you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone who knows even the most elementary dimensional analysis, that the equations are correct. The fact that you also can't show how your idea can lead to the other predictions Nereid asked about will continue to be a weak point. I'm puzzled on how you expect us to simply accept assertations, about the equations, when you admitted that you don't have the math skills to show how the dimensionallity is correct.

If your only purpose in presenting it was to say here it is, it's not wrong, deal with it. No matter what anyone shows, you wouldn't acknowledge any problems anyway. So, there really isn't any reason to discuss it. There are quite a few threads here with that kind of presented idea, some of them with much more involved math (which didn't make them any more correct).

If you were actually looking for any input to correct possible problems, simply declaring that they are correct leads to nothing more than the first case, so again, there is no reason to discuss.

If your honestly looking for input to help you correct problems, people here will be more than happy to help. But, you have to acknowledge the errors found, provide possible fixes and only then is there really anything to discuss.

With your last post, simply stating that the equations are correct, without acknowledging threre are problems, while expecting us to accept your unconventional usage without definitions, your posts have entered the first or second case. Since, in those cases, there really isn't anything left to discuss, I will simply bow out here.

tusenfem

24-October-2006, 07:28 AM

It is the understanding of time and space according to known physics that is the problem, not the way I have presented it. Time is measured by seconds and space is measured by metres. In this concept the volume of time generated creates space. Space is not a fixed three dimensional metric as it is in GR, here it is a multitude of flowing dynamic fields.
An amount of space is created by every object in a given period of time that is why both m and seconds are used. In the case a mass-less particle considered at rest, it generates a given volume (m^3) in one second.
As stated in the concept, time is measured by the fixed flow of the volume and space is measured by the radius of that volume. Time and space are the same entity so this idea that they are completely separate is nonsense in my opinion.

Sorry to not agree with you here, but if you use a reference volume here for your calculations then you have specifically used a 1 second time interval which means that your volume has a dimension m3 and the per-second disappears. Otherwise you will be trying to measure with a ever changing reference volume measured in m3s-1, which naturally can be done, but then you will have to tell us how you define the radius of the Earth in something per second squared, if you want to add it to the gravitational acceleration.

Otherwise, you may try to start off clearly with your paper, and define some of the ways in which "normal" units transform into your "STC" units, otherwise there is nothing to discuss, as you can come up with any explanation. So, reconcider your premises and explain them clearly to us, then a useful discussion can start.

Uclock

24-October-2006, 08:22 PM

Otherwise you will be trying to measure with a ever changing reference volume measured in m3s-1, which naturally can be done, but then you will have to tell us how you define the radius of the Earth in something per second squared, if you want to add it to the gravitational acceleration.

Ok, let’s start with the basic premiss. My contention is that a super-luminal quantum field radiates from every object or particle in this Universe and has done so since the big bang. The field has a constant volume per second but it is retarded according to its mass so it has a constant volume flowing each and every second which is why I use per second s^-1. This volume flows each and every second, just as a when you move at a fixed velocity you do so each and every second, (per second s^-1).

Otherwise, you may try to start off clearly with your paper, and define some of the ways in which "normal" units transform into your "STC" units, otherwise there is nothing to discuss, as you can come up with any explanation. So, reconcider your premises and explain them clearly to us, then a useful discussion can start.

I have used the volume of quantum field radiated by the Earth to calculate the space-time constant (STC). I also maintain that acceleration and gravity are exactly the same entity therefore at the surface of the Earth the volume of quantum field is retarded by a given amount, in the case of the earth this retardation has a radius of g = 9.81 m. This retardation or distortion has a fixed amount of volume which can be calculated.

Perhaps a simple analogy such as the flow of water from a pipe might help here. Imagine two separate water pipes ‘A’ and ‘B’ with a balloon stuck over the end of each pipe and both have a valve which can be either completely open or completely closed. For the start of this analogy both are turned off. You turn on valve ‘A’ and a fraction of a second later you turn on valve ‘B’ and the balloons begin to fill up and expand rapidly. Just for the purpose of measuring the difference in volume you turn both off together after a given amount of time. Now you need to find the difference in volume of each balloon because balloon ‘A’ started to fill before balloon ‘B’.

In the case of the analogy you measure the circumference of each balloon to find the radius of balloons ‘A’ and ‘B’. Once we know the radius of each balloon we need to find the difference in the volume between ‘A’ and ‘B’. To find this difference you subtract the volume of ‘B’ from the volume of ‘A’ and this will give you the difference in the volume between balloon ‘A’ and balloon ‘B’.

In the case of the space-time quantum fields ‘A’ would be the volume of quantum field for a mass-less particle considered at rest and ‘B’ is the volume of quantum field generated by the Earth, g is just the difference in the radius of the quantum field between the Earth and a mass-less particle considered at rest so the volume of the distortion (difference in volumes) Vdiff = 4/3*pi*Ra^3 – 4/3*pi*Rb^3 will give the difference in the volume between the two balloons and in the case of the quantum fields Vdis = 4/3*pi*(RE + g)^3 – 4/3*pi*RE^3 gives the volume of the distortion. I hope that’s not too long winded and you understand it.

A mass-less particle considered at rest always generates the maximum volume of quantum space-time field possible, in this Universe, each and every second which is Phi = 4/3*pi*c^3. The Earth has its volume of quantum space-time field retarded because of its mass.

In the case of the analogy, if you work out the difference in the volumes you can work backwards and calculate the difference between the times when valve ‘A’ and valve ‘B’ were turned on.

In this concept time and space are completely interchangeable, the volume of field will tell you how much time has passed and the radius of the field will tell you how much space has been generated.

If space was just a three dimensional metric then I can understand why you cannot mix the dimensions but in this concept space is being generated all the time and it is made up of billions and billions of quantum fields and the size of these fields are constantly increasing.

One thing about this concept that everyone seems to of overlooked is; if I am right and each and every object generates a fixed volume of space-time quantum field each and every second, then gravity is not a force that works over an infinite distance. If the age of the Universe is about 13.75 billion years then the largest size of a quantum field (or gravitational field) can be is around 1500 AU. Now think about the consequence of such a possibility.

tusenfem

25-October-2006, 10:18 AM

you still do not explain how you can add Re and g, which in normal live have units m and m/s2. Now you suddenly say that g has unit m, how, why? Did you devide "normal" g through your volume-per-second? Nope, then you would have as unit for g m-2.

I do understand that you can define your volume-per-second with unit m3s-1. Sure, you have an ever expanding "ball", but if you then "scale" everything with this volume-per-second, you will find that the Earth's volume is shrinking with time.

Also, should the volume of your quantum-wave-field not have a volume:
VQWF = 4/3 * pi * (c * t)3?
This does not mean that every second VQWF increases by 4/3 * pi * c3 m3s-1 but 4/3 * pi * c3 m3s-3, unless I do not understand your physics and mathematics.

Uclock

25-October-2006, 07:30 PM

Hi Tusenfem thank for the reply.

you still do not explain how you can add Re and g, which in normal live have units m and m/s2. Now you suddenly say that g has unit m, how, why? Did you devide "normal" g through your volume-per-second? Nope, then you would have as unit for g m-2.

The quantum space-time field is dynamic and constantly flowing. To work out the volume of the distorted quantum field I have taken a snapshot, a freeze-frame if you like, which will mean the measurement is in m only. If you could see the quantum field of a mass-less particle considered at rest and take a photo graph of it at about 9.65^-6 sec as it expands from the particle, then take a picture of the quantum field of the Earth (without the Earth mucking up the picture) when you overlay the pictures you will find the difference in the radius between the two photos would be 9.81 m. It is a still snapshot of dynamic quantum fields which is being measured in m.

I do understand that you can define your volume-per-second with unit m3s-1. Sure, you have an ever expanding "ball", but if you then "scale" everything with this volume-per-second, you will find that the Earth's volume is shrinking with time.

It is not the volume of the Earth that I am measuring, it is the volume of the Earths quantum field which is generated at the Earth’s centre of mass.
The field moves through the Earth and about 9.56^-6 seconds later it reaches the surface of the Earth, I hope that clears it up.

Also, should the volume of your quantum-wave-field not have a volume:
VQWF = 4/3 * pi * (c * t)3?
This does not mean that every second VQWF increases by 4/3 * pi * c3 m3s-1 but 4/3 * pi * c3 m3s-3, unless I do not understand your physics and mathematics.

Most definitely not but it can be written as V = (4/3*pi*c^3)*t but in 1 second the natural volume of a quantum field generated by a mass-less particle considered at rest is Phi = 4/3*pi*c^3.It is the base measurement from where all distortions of time and space can be measured also the field is not a wave or anything akin to wave.

Tensor

25-October-2006, 07:59 PM

One thing about this concept that everyone seems to of overlooked is; if I am right and each and every object generates a fixed volume of space-time quantum field each and every second, then gravity is not a force that works over an infinite distance. If the age of the Universe is about 13.75 billion years then the largest size of a quantum field (or gravitational field) can be is around 1500 AU. Now think about the consequence of such a possibility.

What about the galaxy? If the largest size that a gravitational field can be is 1500AU, how does the galaxy hold itself together? How do you account for our home galaxies globular clusters, which are gravitationally bound to the galaxy, even though the furthest is almost 50 kpc (about 10 billion AU) away?

Uclock

25-October-2006, 11:20 PM

What about the galaxy? If the largest size that a gravitational field can be is 1500AU, how does the galaxy hold itself together? How do you account for our home galaxies globular clusters, which are gravitationally bound to the galaxy, even though the furthest is almost 50 kpc (about 10 billion AU) away?

Hi Tensor

A very fair question and I hope I can answer it to your satisfaction.

The reason I asked you to think about the consequences of the gravitational field not being infinite is because it explains the almost fixed rotation of stars inside spiral galaxies.

Remember each and every object or particle in this Universe generates a quantum field according to this concept. Each object can only be gravitationally influenced where these fields overlap, a bit like watching a small cluster of bubbles rotating in a sink full of water. The bubbles rotate as one because each bubble is connected to the one next to it. A bubble on one side of the cluster is not directly connected to a bubble on the other side but if you try to slowly pull at one of the bubbles, all will move so all are connected indirectly.

It is the same inside our galaxy and every other galaxy. Each star or object is directly connected to the quantum field of the objects next to it and indirectly connected to every other object in the galaxy by a chain of connections. The beauty of this is that dark matter is not required to hold the galaxy together. Even the IGM is full of primordial gas so this links the galaxy clusters together.

In the case of our own globular clusters the effect is the same. Each star is linked to every other star by the overlapping quantum fields of dust, gas and larger objects although they are not directly connected, what happens on one side of the cluster will have an effect (albeit a small one) on the other side of the cluster, the same goes for all objects in this Universe.

Earlier this year I was reading an article in the Astronomy Now magazine about Sagittarius A*, the black hole believed to be at the centre of our galaxy. Very near to the black hole there is a small cluster of stars that are rotating around the black hole and astronomers are at a loss to explain why the cluster is not being ripped apart by the gravitational forces of Sagittarius A*. The reason is because the black hole only has an indirect affect on the cluster, that’s why it is rotating around Sagittarius A* as a cluster.

There is no real direct evidence for dark matter and I believe dark matter does not exist, although you may not agree with me.

I hope that explains it for you.

Nereid

26-October-2006, 12:04 AM

[snip]

There is no real direct evidence for dark matter and I believe dark matter does not exist, although you may not agree with me.

I hope that explains it for you.Please provide, in a quantitative, consistent way, an explanation* of the good astronomical observations that are used as the basis for concluding that there is (lots of) dark matter in the universe (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42223).

Specifically, please account for such data for rich clusters. You may, as you wish, start with Zwicky's 1929 paper.

*or, if you prefer, a quantitative account of ...

Tensor

26-October-2006, 03:41 AM

It is the same inside our galaxy and every other galaxy. Each star or object is directly connected to the quantum field of the objects next to it and indirectly connected to every other object in the galaxy by a chain of connections.

OK, lets stay in our galaxy. The closest star to our sun is Proxima Centauri. It is 4.22 light years away. That equals ~266,700 AU.

To quote you:

then the largest size of a quantum field (or gravitational field) can be is around 1500 AU.

That means, even if you allow the largest gravitational field your idea allows between the sun and Proxima, it can only reach 3000 AU (1500 away from the Sun and 1500 AU away from Proxima), which is ~263,000 AU short of the two having any kind of gravitational effect on each other. And that is for the closest star. Heck, by the reasoning of your idea, Proxima is even too far away from Alpha and Beta Centauri to have any kind of gravitational effect with them(about 13,000 AU and I'm not even talking about an orbit, just any kind of gravitational interaction)

There is no real direct evidence for dark matter and I believe dark matter does not exist, although you may not agree with me.

I don't agree with you, but what I'm asking has nothing to do with dark matter.

I hope that explains it for you.

Well, as you can see, not really. If even the closest star to the Sun, by your idea, can't have a gravitational interaction with the Sun, how is the galaxy holding on to the sun? Much less, hold on to stars even further away than the sun from the galaxy's center.

Uclock

26-October-2006, 01:35 PM

Thanks for your input Nereid

In a quote from the Van Den Bergh paper you cited as proof of dark matter; “These observations clearly showed that the rotation curve of M31 did not exhibit a Keplerian drop-off. In fact, its rotational velocity remained constant over radial distance of 16-30 kpc.These observations indicated that the mass in the outer regions of the Andromeda galaxy increased with galactocentric distances, even though the optical luminosity of M31 did not.

The rotational velocity will remain constant if the gravitational field is localised to each and every object as I stated in the reply to Tensor.

In the paper Zwicky is quoted as saying “Present estimates of the the masses of nebulae are based on observations of the luminosities and internal rotations of nebulae. It is shown that both these methods are unreliable; that from the observed luminosities of extragalactic systems only lower limits for the values of their masses can be obtained.”

Well they would be wouldn’t they if you view gravity as working over an infinite distance. The problem appears to be that the mass to light ratio does not work unless you include dark matter but all of this is based around the force of gravity working over an infinite distance. If the gravitation field is localised it will explain all these observations and for this reason I cite my answer above in my reply to Tensor.

Uclock

26-October-2006, 01:47 PM

Hi Tensor

That means, even if you allow the largest gravitational field your idea allows between the sun and Proxima, it can only reach 3000 AU (1500 away from the Sun and 1500 AU away from Proxima), which is ~263,000 AU short of the two having any kind of gravitational effect on each other. And that is for the closest star. Heck, by the reasoning of your idea, Proxima is even too far away from Alpha and Beta Centauri to have any kind of gravitational effect with them(about 13,000 AU and I'm not even talking about an orbit, just any kind of gravitational interaction)

If it was only each star that generated a quantum field then I would agree with you but space is a thick soup of quantum fields all overlapping. Each and every particle of dust and gas is generating a quantum field. This soup of fields will move and rotate as one so our Sun has an indirect affect on Proxima via the quantum fields of all the dust, gas, comets meteors and every other object in between our Sun and Proxima.
The galaxy has a thick soup of quantum fields and it is not just stars that generate quantum fields, all objects do. Now do you understand?

Nereid

26-October-2006, 01:56 PM

Uclock

26-October-2006, 02:55 PM

Taking these last two posts (#24 and #25) together: as there are huge numbers of high quality observations showing that there is ordinary matter (ions, atoms, electrons, molecules, dust, stars, ....) between galaxies (and even between clusters of galaxies), where does gravity 'end', in the Uclock ATM idea?

In this concept gravity is localised so the gravitational field of each and every object extends out to about 1500 AU if the Universe is around 13.75 billion years old.

This ordinary matter, (ions, atoms, electrons, molecules, dust, stars, ....) between galaxies makes the IGM like a soup of fields which extends all over the Universe. In fact you could describe our Universe as a ‘bubbleverse’ but I think that destroys the beauty of the Universe in which we are privileged to exist in for a finite amount of time.

Each object, whether that is a molecule or a star, will only feel the gravitational influence of the objects next to it (wthin 1500 AU) outside of this there is no ‘direct’ gravitational effect on the object but each and every object is linked by a chain of quantum gravity fields. So although quantum gravity fields are localised in effect gravity will work over cosmological distances which is why we see clusters of galaxies reacting as they do.

Nereid

26-October-2006, 03:17 PM

In this concept gravity is localised so the gravitational field of each and every object extends out to about 1500 AU if the Universe is around 13.75 billion years old.

This ordinary matter, (ions, atoms, electrons, molecules, dust, stars, ....) between galaxies makes the IGM like a soup of fields which extends all over the Universe. In fact you could describe our Universe as a ‘bubbleverse’ but I think that destroys the beauty of the Universe in which we are privileged to exist in for a finite amount of time.

Each object, whether that is a molecule or a star, will only feel the gravitational influence of the objects next to it (wthin 1500 AU) outside of this there is no ‘direct’ gravitational effect on the object but each and every object is linked by a chain of quantum gravity fields. So although quantum gravity fields are localised in effect gravity will work over cosmological distances which is why we see clusters of galaxies reacting as they do.Which brings us back to the question(s) re dark matter: how does this Uclock ATM account for the observations ... quantitatively?

Earlier you wrote:If the gravitation field is localised it will explain all these observations and for this reason I cite my answer above in my reply to Tensor.However, "this reason" (cited) is not quantitative.

Please provide a quantitative explanation.

Uclock

26-October-2006, 03:50 PM

Nereid

26-October-2006, 05:05 PM

I am working towards a mathematical solution but at the moment, with my current mathematical skills, it will be some time before I can give you a quantitative explanation. It is only a matter of time and a good deal of work, and hopefully with some help, I will eventually be able to model the movement of galaxy clusters using this concept. That is if someone doesn’t beat me to it.

I know the concept is radical but it will pay dividends in the end.

This concept has modelled quantum gravity in a way that matches Newtonian gravity within the confines of the solar system, which is a start. I do not at present have the facilities I need to model all of the physical world but give it time and you will see that I am onto something with this concept.So, from an earlier post of yours (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=853125&postcount=21):I believe dark matter does not existwhat is the objective basis for your belief? Or, perhaps I should ask: do you have an objective basis for this belief?

To put this into context: without an objective way to select between statements such as the one I quoted, why should anyone choose any one of them? To turn up the contrast, why choose yours over mine (that it's invisible pink fairies monkeying with motes on the transparent sphere that's just a few thousand au away)?

Uclock

27-October-2006, 09:51 AM

Nereid

27-October-2006, 04:45 PM

I would have thought all theories are just a belief but they do require some sort of proof that the concept may have merit. What is needed is a phenomenon that no other theory can explain properly.
If this concept is correct then as stated earlier all particles of gas and dust and larger objects generate their own quantum field. The Sun draws in dust, gas and larger objects because of its gravitational field so according to this concept as they are drawn in towards the Sun their quantum fields will be moving with them therefore there will be a movement of space in towards the Sun and this movement of space should be detectable. Do you agree?While there is certainly room for discussion on just what science - astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, and space science in particular - is, the basics are pretty clear.

My own version is approximately as follows:

* theories are the engine room of science

* a theory must be internally consistent

* a theory should be consistent with other (well-established) theories where their respective domains of applicability overlap

* above all, a theory should be consistent with all (good, multiple, independent) observations and experimental results (in the domain of applicability).

So, to your post:What is needed is a phenomenon that no other theory can explain properly.This is the 'tie-breaker'; however, all other consistencies are 'needed' ... first.If this concept is correct then as stated earlier all particles of gas and dust and larger objects generate their own quantum field.Clearly, this is, as you say, a 'concept', not a theory. And, per an earlier post, it is not (yet) quantitative. Ergo, it is not a theory (you cannot show consistency with observational results if your idea is not expressed quantitatively).Do you agree?There's nothing to agree (or disagree) with! :wall:

All there is is a bunch of words, without definitions, without even an attempt to show internal consistency, without even a hint how consistency with well-established theories could be demonstrated, and (above all) no way to begin to consider consistency with observational results.

Of course, I may be wrong ... would you please:

* show how this 'concept' is internally consistent

* state which well-established theories its domain of applicability overlaps

* demonstrate the extent to which there is consistency in such overlaps.

I think you already said your 'concept' cannot be shown to be consistent with any observational or experimental results, so the most important consistency is already missing.

tusenfem

29-October-2006, 02:06 PM

Most definitely not but it can be written as V = (4/3*pi*c^3)*t but in 1 second the natural volume of a quantum field generated by a mass-less particle considered at rest is Phi = 4/3*pi*c^3.It is the base measurement from where all distortions of time and space can be measured also the field is not a wave or anything akin to wave.

I guess I must be dumb not to understand this, but still. Summarizing the starting point of your "theory".

You have a mass-less particle that generates a quantum field. Okay, this field is constantly expanding at velocity c. So far so good. Now in "normal" theory I would assume that this field is expanding in all directions with this velocity, which means that one will have an expanding sphere around the mass-less particle (as this is a thought-experiment we will let the particle be at rest). Thus the sphere expands at a velocity c, which would mean that the total volume of the quantum field will be determined by the radius at some time t: R(t) = c t. Then using "normal" math the volume will be V = 4/3 pi R3 = 4/3 pi c3 t3.

Now your theory says that the quantum field is constantly increasing in volume by: Phi t= 4/3 pi c3 t. This becomes interesting, because there is still an assumption of a sphere here. This means that your quantum sphere is increasing in radius by: R(t) = (Phi t / (4/3 pi))1/3, which reduces to: R(t) = c t 1/3.

Hmmm, interesting, with your assumption of constant increase in volume in time you find that your quantum field expands more slowly than a photon would move, basically it will be possible for objects to escape from the quantum field whenever t > 1.

Next point of clarification will have to be why this should not be a problem to your theory.
And then we would like to have an explanation why you add Re to g. You say that g is the deformation and is 9.82 m (instead of m s-2).

Uclock

30-October-2006, 01:45 PM

I apologise for the delay in answering but I have been away for a few days.

While there is certainly room for discussion on just what science - astronomy,
astrophysics, cosmology, and space science in particular - is, the basics are pretty clear.

My own version is approximately as follows:

* theories are the engine room of science

I agree

* a theory must be internally consistent

I agree

* a theory should be consistent with other (well-established) theories where their respective domains of applicability overlap

I do not agree, if the theories of today were correct then GR and QM would fit like a glove, something is wrong with the way physics describes our Universe so it desperately needs a paradigm shift in thinking that can explain observations without including the ‘bolt on’ of dark matter or dark energy.

* above all, a theory should be consistent with all (good, multiple, independent) observations and experimental results (in the domain of applicability).

Here I completely agree.

Clearly, this is, as you say, a 'concept', not a theory. And, per an earlier post, it is not (yet) quantitative. Ergo, it is not a theory (you cannot show consistency with observational results if your idea is not expressed quantitatively).

It is a theory and it has consequences that explain what we observe without resorting to include something that cannot be directly detected. Gravity waves are a prediction of GR and they are another example of something yet to be detected, where are they?

There's nothing to agree (or disagree) with!

All there is is a bunch of words, without definitions, without even an attempt to show internal consistency, without even a hint how consistency with well-established theories could be demonstrated, and (above all) no way to begin to consider consistency with observational results.

Of course, I may be wrong ... would you please:

* show how this 'concept' is internally consistent

How can it be just a bunch of words when I have quantified the base amount of field generated by a mass-less particle considered at rest. From this all measurements of quantum fields can be quantified which is why I have matched Newtonian gravity within the confines of the solar system where we know the effect of gravitational fields. Beyond the solar system it is quite possible that gravity has no direct effect.

* state which well-established theories its domain of applicability overlaps

* demonstrate the extent to which there is consistency in such overlaps.

I think you already said your 'concept' cannot be shown to be consistent with any observational or experimental results, so the most important consistency is already missing.

This is why I asked if you agreed that if the concept of individual quantum fields passing over the Earth would cause a turbulent flow of space that would be detectable because there is evidence of such a turbulent movement of space in towards the Sun.

I may not provide you with a set of equations to explain the movements of stars within the galaxy but if I am correct and each and every object generates its field according to its mass then where these fields overlap they will experience a force according to total volume of distortion inside this overlap. It can be modelled using vectors providing you know how many objects and there mass in each and every direction. As there is a huge amount of dust, gas and many other objects floating around the galaxy, each object field will only experience a force when their quantum fields overlap. Outside of this overlap the object does not experience any force. If you have good knowledge of working with vectors then it should be possible to model the rotation of stars using such a method.

The problem today with physics is; theory, using the mind to create, has been overtaken by mathematics. Today mathematics takes the lead and physicists follow with some obscure theory to explain the mathematics.

Imagination has dumped in favour of the abstract possibilities of mathematics. If a real breakthrough in physics is ever to be found it will not be with mathematics taking the lead.

Uclock

30-October-2006, 04:23 PM

I can only apologise Tusenfem, this is what happens when you try to do four things at once. (Home pressure if you know what mean). I hope the correct explanation is satisfactory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uclock
Most definitely not but it can be written as V = (4/3*pi*c^3)*t but in 1 second the natural volume of a quantum field generated by a mass-less particle considered at rest is Phi = 4/3*pi*c^3.It is the base measurement from where all distortions of time and space can be measured also the field is not a wave or anything akin to wave.

I guess I must be dumb not to understand this, but still. Summarizing the starting point of your "theory".

You have a mass-less particle that generates a quantum field.

Yes, all objects generate a quantum field but a mass-less particle considered at rest will generate the largest quantum field.

Okay, this field is constantly expanding at velocity c.

No, the fields expands by volume, the volume of the quantum field remains constant, not the radius and a mass-less particle considered at rest has the largest volume of quantum field. Mass retards the flow of field by and amount of time resulting in a ‘missing’ volume of quantum field.

So far so good. Now in "normal" theory I would assume that this field is expanding in all directions with this velocity, which means that one will have an expanding sphere around the mass-less particle (as this is a thought-experiment we will let the particle be at rest). Thus the sphere expands at a velocity c, which would mean that the total volume of the quantum field will be determined by the radius at some time t: R(t) = c t. Then using "normal" math the volume will be V = 4/3 pi R3 = 4/3 pi c3 t3.

No, the velocity of the radius reduces dramatically as the field expands. The radius of the field only drops to a velocity of ‘c’ after one second hence the inclusion of ‘c’ in the formula for the volume of a sphere.
Phi = V = 4/3*pi*c^3
No object with mass can match this volume because the object started generating its volume of field fractions of seconds later than a mass-less particle considered at rest, remember in this concept time can be measured by the volume of a quantum field.

Now your theory says that the quantum field is constantly increasing in volume by: Phi t= 4/3 pi c3 t. This becomes interesting, because there is still an assumption of a sphere here. This means that your quantum sphere is increasing in radius by: R(t) = (Phi t / (4/3 pi))1/3, which reduces to: R(t) = c t 1/3.

My fault for writing it down wrong, if we introduce time into the equation then it should be Phi = (4*pi*c^3)/3*t for a mass-less particle considered at rest. Where t = 1.
For objects with mass you find the amount of volume of spacetime missing by multiplying its mass by the STC so the volume of distortion can be found which will be Vdis = Mass*STC then convert this to time by multiplying the volume by 1/Phi and this will give the amount of ‘retardation’ from Universal time, which is the flow of the volume of quantum field of a mass-less particle considered at rest.

All space and time in this concept is measured against the flow of volume for a mass-less particle considered at rest so in effect what we have is a universe clock against which all measurements of time and space are taken so the natural radius of a quantum field will be

ST = ((3*t*Phi)/(4*pi))^1/3

ST = the radius of field generated by a mass-less particle considered at rest.

In the case of an object with mass it is the time that is retarded so to find the amount of time retardation (missing volume or distortion) we first find the volume of this distortion by Vdis = Mass*STC then convert it into time using the time quanta tm = (1/Phi)*STC then the flow of the quantum is retarded by tr = t-tm so the quantum field for the object with mass will be

STm = ((3*tr*Phi)/(4*pi))^1/3

Where STm = the radius of the quantum field generated by an object with mass and tr = the retarded time rate as the field expands.

The difference between ST and STm will give the rate of acceleration (distortion) at that point of the field.

Distortion in m s^-2 = ST - STm

For an object with mass its internal clock has been set back so to speak. It has started to generate its field later then that of a mass-less particle. It has a fixed volume of field missing and from this fixed volume of field you can calculate by how much time the field has been retarded. Time and the volume of the quantum field are the same entity.

I have used ‘g’ for this reason. If this concept holds any merit then mass and the volume of a quantum spacetime field must have a direct link so there has to be direct link to the distortion of space which must obey Newtonian laws at least within the confines of what we know to be true i.e. the solar system.
I came to the conclusion that acceleration in all forms is simply a distortion of space and therefore it is a distortion of time because they are the same entity.
We measure acceleration in m s^-2 so I decided to take a snapshot of the quantum field of the Earth and lay it on top of quantum field generated by a mass-less particle considered at rest. In a three dimensional example it is like putting one sphere inside the other and finding the difference in volume between them. In my example one sphere of quantum field is the same size as the Earth the other sphere is larger by a radius of 9.81 m. The actual use of ‘g’ instead of 9.81 m was unfortunate but I hope that clarifies how I came to use ‘g’.
If this concept did not have any merit, then it would not be able to closely match Newtonian gravity within the confines of the solar system, but it does match Newtonian gravity.

One of the major consequences of this concept is the explanation of acceleration and inertia which I am more then willing to discuss with mind games providing you have grasped the basic premiss of the concept. You are a smart man so I don’t think it will take you long.

Nereid

30-October-2006, 04:48 PM

[snip]* a theory should be consistent with other (well-established) theories where their respective domains of applicability overlapI do not agree, if the theories of today were correct then GR and QM would fit like a glove, something is wrong with the way physics describes our Universe so it desperately needs a paradigm shift in thinking that can explain observations without including the ‘bolt on’ of dark matter or dark energy.

[snip]It may be worth spending some time to explore this disagreement; among other things, it may clear up at least part of the disconnect that Tensor and tusenfem have noted too.

Let's start with astronomy.

With a few small exceptions*, astronomy beyond the solar system involves the detection of electromagnetic radiation.

21st century physics includes several, very successful theories concerning EM, and its interaction with matter (and gravity).

If the Uclock idea is not consistent with these theories of physics, at least wrt EM of the intensities, frequency/wavelength, polarisation, ... detected by astronomical instruments, then surely any Uclock idea must include a complete, alternative set of theories (to address EM and its interactions)?

Do your ideas include such alternatives? For example, if I observe a '21 cm' line, in doing (mainstream) astronomy, I can use all the work of (quantum) physics, re this being a forbidden, hyperfine hydrogen transition. Doing astronomy according to the Uclock ideas, I would need to find the alternative explanation for the observed line.

I think that we need to clear this up quickly; otherwise you will have to re-write the interpretation of every astronomical observation, won't you?Clearly, this is, as you say, a 'concept', not a theory. And, per an earlier post, it is not (yet) quantitative. Ergo, it is not a theory (you cannot show consistency with observational results if your idea is not expressed quantitatively).It is a theory and it has consequences that explain what we observe without resorting to include something that cannot be directly detected. Gravity waves are a prediction of GR and they are another example of something yet to be detected, where are they?

[snip]This is a good example of what I just mentioned: "explain what we observe" involves either accepting all the relevant parts of modern physics, to do with EM and its interaction with matter (and gravity), or re-writing all these parts of physics.

So perhaps a simpler question would be this: which parts of (modern, mainstream) physics that has to do with EM and its interaction with matter and gravity are necessary, in the Uclock idea?

*Cosmic rays are perhaps the most notable, but also the ~dozen neutrinos from SN1987, some neutral ISM gas, and a few ISM dust particles.

tusenfem

30-October-2006, 05:51 PM

I am sorry but this goes above this plasmaastrophysicists head.

Phi you give, Phi = V = 4/3*pi*c^3 --> unit m^3 / s^3
So your ST = ((3*t*Phi)/(4*pi))^1/3 --> unit (m^3 / s^2)^1/3
and then Distortion in m s^-2 = ST - STm

Guess you measure c in different units t c^3 := (m / s^2)^3, which leads to c := ( (m/s^2)^3 / s)^(1/3) --> m / s^(7/3), unless you mean to say that taking 1 sec will let the unit of time disappear in your definition, which it will not in normal physics.

I would advise to write things up more clearly. Your field is always flowing in volume in m^3/s etc. Do not write it on the board, but attach a normal word processing document. Explain every step. Not just out of the blue definitions. I have e.g. no idea why with introducing time in your theory you get the /3*t, does this mean devide by (3t) or does it mean devide by 3 and multiply by t? Apparently from your definition of ST it means the first.

Uclock

31-October-2006, 08:49 PM

Nereid

31-October-2006, 11:27 PM

Thank you Nereid and Trusenfem for taking the time to put me closer to explaining this concept.

I do wish physics to be rewritten but if that is required to advance our understanding of this Universe then so be it. If we have our understanding of space and time wrong then it will influence what we think we know about the Universe and the physics we use to describe it.
This concept is a huge paradigm shift in the way time and space are viewed and if it is correct then many areas of physics will be affected.

The paper trying to describe this concept is here (http://www.wbabin.net/science/stanton.pdf) and I hope you can spare the time to read and digest it.Well, I wish you luck; it's a daunting enterprise that you have decided to embark upon ... re-writing just about the whole of physics ... perhaps you could concentrate on something small, something specific, something concrete, but (above all) something easily testable? If, after you crank through the basics of "Uclock physics", you arrive at a conclusion that there's no measurable difference (with mainstream physics), then that's probably a route you don't want to continue down ...

Fortis

01-November-2006, 12:44 AM

At the Earth surface and according to Newton, gravity has a distortion of g = 9.81 m s-2 so the volume of this distortion caused by the Earth will be Vde = (4/3*pi*(Re + g)^3) – (4/3*pi*Re^3) = 5.01 x 10^15 m^3 where Re = the radius of the Earth.
I'm afraid that I have to agree with everybody else, you cannot add quantities with different dimensions, i.e. the addition of g and Re. If you could do this, then it would mean that your theory only worked in one system of units. As nature knows nothing of units, and in particular knows nothing of SI units, I think that you need to revisit this.

(By the way, what units are you measuring Re in?)

Uclock

01-November-2006, 12:23 PM

Hello Fortis

Yes, it is a little unfortunate that I kept the units without explanations of how I came to think of the concept but if you read this (http://www.wbabin.net/science/stanton.pdf) you might get a better understanding of the concept and the math behind it.

I have also written a paper on Quantum gravity, Acceleration and Inertia which also may help the understanding of the concept, you can read this here (http://www.wbabin.net/science/stanton3.pdf).

Uclock

01-November-2006, 02:44 PM

Well, I wish you luck; it's a daunting enterprise that you have decided to embark upon ... re-writing just about the whole of physics ... perhaps you could concentrate on something small, something specific, something concrete, but (above all) something easily testable? If, after you crank through the basics of "Uclock physics", you arrive at a conclusion that there's no measurable difference (with mainstream physics), then that's probably a route you don't want to continue down ...

Well Nereid, thank you for reading the paper “True Ralativity, Quantum gravity and the Universal clock (http://www.wbabin.net/science/stanton.pdf)”.

Yes I realise it is a daunting task to ask physicists to play with such a radical concept from the perspective of their own field of physics but the consequences of True Relativity lead to such mind boggling conclusions such anti-gravity and faster than light space travel, which in known physics is impossible.

The theory is very easily testable by anyone with the correct facilities.

In this concept time dilation occurs because of acceleration, not velocity. If this is true then a simple experiment using a centrifuge, like the ones used to train pilots, and two atomic clocks will prove acceleration is responsible for time dilation.

The collapse of the quantum field for any object under acceleration is also testable by using a vacuum with two objects with a known mass suspended from the top of the vacuum. In the middle of the two test masses place a projectile with a small mass, but here is the tricky part. You cannot hold the projectile because the object used to hold it will also be generating its own quantum field. I would imagine the projectile could be held and accelerated by a magnetic field if the test masses were non-metallic.
What should happen when the projectile is accelerated is its quantum field will collapse causing the two test masses to move in towards each other. The effect should be observable. It has to be done in a vacuum because the air is also generating quantum fields and the movement of air when the projectile is fired will also affect the results.

These are just two simple experiments that will either prove the concept may hold merit or prove it is just another crank concept but the rewards, if I am right, will have great benefits in the production of power and in transportation.

I have seen nothing in the experimental and observational evidence that point to this concept being wrong and we rely on these to keep physics on track. Unfortunately physics has placed abstract mathematics at the forefront then it tries to explain the results with abstract notions such as “p-branes’. This concept was born in the mind and the mathematics followed much later once I could not find any experimental or observational evidence against the theory.

I only urge you to think about the concept and play ‘mind games’ with it, you never know, you might find it fits in with your area of physics.

Nereid

02-November-2006, 10:30 AM

[snip]

The theory is very easily testable by anyone with the correct facilities.

In this concept time dilation occurs because of acceleration, not velocity. If this is true then a simple experiment using a centrifuge, like the ones used to train pilots, and two atomic clocks will prove acceleration is responsible for time dilation.

[snip]Could you please describe what result you expect such an experiment to show?

Uclock

02-November-2006, 02:09 PM

Nereid

02-November-2006, 02:39 PM

Obviously the dilation between clocks will depend on how long the experiment was to run for.

If this experiment were to take place and the centrifuge was run for 8 hours at 8g then, with a quick calculation, according to TR the time dilation between the two clocks will be about 6.45648 x 10^-4 seconds. If the centrifuge is run for 24 hours then the dilation between the two clocks will be about 1.343 x 10^-3 seconds.Thanks.

In the Uclock idea, do atomic clocks and unstable 'elementary' particles (such as muons and pions) measure (or sense?) time differently? What I mean is, in exactly the same environment, would an atomic clock and a muon (say) 'record' the same passage of time? or would they give different 'answers'?

Uclock

02-November-2006, 04:04 PM

If they are exactly the same they and they experience the same force of acceleration then they will experience the same flow of time. If they experience a different acceleration then they with experience a different passage of time.

Nereid

02-November-2006, 05:48 PM

Uclock

03-November-2006, 10:56 PM

Nereid

04-November-2006, 12:35 AM

What you are asking me for is something I cannot give because I have not even tried to investigate the quantum world very closely using the concept of True Relativity.Although the first quick look has provided an intriguing result which relates to the ratio between the distortion size of known particles. I will not comment any further.

If you wish to ask any question on acceleration, inertia and gravity, including time dilation I will be happy to answer but dealing with the quantum world requires a great deal of study using this concept that is beyond the facilities I have available at the moment.
I am not trying to get out of answering your question because I know TR will be able to provide an answer. You must realise I am the only one studying this concept so it is impossible to give you answers to things yet to be studied.

One thing I would ask of you, as someone who knows classical physics, is to explain the relationship between mass and charge, according to known physics, as per your question.
I did not think there was a direct relationship between mass and charge.
The reason is because, even in known physics each and every particle has an opposite particle, an anti-particle, so how is there a direct relationship between mass and charge?
How does known physics account for charge?
How does known physics account for mass?

Please explain?You don't need quantum physics to work out the acceleration on a muon moving in a magnetic field - classical physics works just fine.

That's partly why I asked - you seem to be quite happy to use classical results, in toto, to test your ATM ideas, without any (apparent) thought to how they might be completely different.

If you like, I could rephrase the question in terms of a moving charge, of mass m, in a magnetic field ... and ask you what the acceleration on that object would be (in the Uclock idea). Shall I?

Uclock

04-November-2006, 12:32 PM

Tensor

04-November-2006, 01:59 PM

Where did I mention quantum physics?

Post number 48:

What you are asking me for is something I cannot give because I have not even tried to investigate the quantum world very closely using the concept of True Relativity.

Nereid was simply pointing out that you don't need quantum physics, to answer her question.

Experimental results are very important and I agree classical physics measures the expected results well and TR can match the result predicted using Newtonian gravity. The results of TR may well be different in some areas but until I study TR in those areas I won’t know will I?

Well then, aren't these the areas where you should be looking? After all, we know Newtonian gravity breaks down in certain areas, so matching it is no great shake. That is the main reason for the questions concerning Mercury's Perihelion and the inspiral of binaries. If you want to claim your idea is worth anything, you need to match those first, then showing that your idea can predict and match something that GR doesn't or can't.

There is no need to rephrase the question because as I have already told you, I have yet to study TR in those areas, but I would like you to answer the questions I posed above, if you know the answers.

How is there a direct relationship between mass and charge?

What direct relationship? I suggest you study something on the different familys of electrons and quarks. The electron and quark families all have the same charge, but different masses. So how exaxtly is that a direct relationship?

How does known physics account for charge?

What do you mean account for? As to why is there a charge?

How does known physics account for mass?

Do a google on the Higgs particle. That is the current thought on how particles aquire mass. The weak point here is that the Higgs hasn't been observed yet. Or again, do you mean why is there mass?

Uclock

04-November-2006, 07:55 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uclock
Where did I mention quantum physics?
Post number 48:

I did not mention quantum physics, I was relating to the quantum world, the micro world.

Nereid was simply pointing out that you don't need quantum physics, to answer her question.

No, but you need to examine what might be the cause of magnetism according to TR before you can investigate what effect that might cause on a muon or any other charged particle.

Well then, aren't these the areas where you should be looking? After all, we know Newtonian gravity breaks down in certain areas, so matching it is no great shake. That is the main reason for the questions concerning Mercury's Perihelion and the inspiral of binaries. If you want to claim your idea is worth anything, you need to match those first, then showing that your idea can predict and match something that GR doesn't or can't.

I am looking at these areas with very limited resources. It is not like a team of physicists taking a concept and given an area to investigate. This would provide results quickly. I am an amateur who has never been conventionally trained in the way the physics community works.

Now this statement has knocked the wind out of me.

After all, we know Newtonian gravity breaks down in certain areas, so matching it is no great shake.

I have already told you TR does not break down under any of the extremes of this Universe that I have studied and can even model the events before the big bang. Newtonian physics does break down, yet still I can match Newton’s value for gravity where it is proven to be close to what we know, within the confines of the solar system.

As far as I know I am the third person in the world to come up with a theory of gravity that is completely unique, the first being Newton the second being Einstein, please tell me if you know of anyone else. I am not trying to say I am in their league because that would absurd.

TR is completely different from either Newton or Einstein and you say it is no great shake, therefore there must be many theories of gravity that match Newtonian gravity within the confines of the solar system.

Please show me where I can read these theories? I have looked and I can’t find any!

Do not give either MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) or TeVeS (Tensor Vector Scalar theory) as examples because these are a variants of Newtonian physics and GR.

How is there a direct relationship between mass and charge?
What direct relationship? I suggest you study something on the different familys of electrons and quarks.

No, what was stated was, according to Nereid, there is a direct relationship between mass and charge in classical physics and all I wanted was to find out what is this direct relationship?

I have studied leptons and quarks in classical physics and I can see no direct relationship between mass and charge.

The electron and quark families all have the same charge, but different masses. So how exaxtly is that a direct relationship?

No, usless I have it completely wrong the electron is part of the lepton family as is the muon along with the tauon, each has a full negative charge Q = -1 but the quark family have a fractional charge so the electron and quark families have a different charge, not the same charge as you stated.

What I would like to know is as per Nereid’s statement
“Can you please state what the equation that describes the relationship between the mass and charge of the muon (or pion).”

What is this relationship that Nereid talks of?

What do you mean account for? As to why is there a charge?

Yes, why do particles possess charge, what causes it to have a charge?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uclock
How does known physics account for mass?
Do a google on the Higgs particle. That is the current thought on how particles aquire mass. The weak point here is that the Higgs hasn't been observed yet. Or again, do you mean why is there mass?

That cannot be the best answer you can come up with.
Do a google?
Do you seriously think I would come onto this website if I knew nothing of physics? I have watched this website for while and I know there are many knowledgeable people here. This is why I am here, debating this subject with you.
I do not have the knowledge of mathematics that most of you have but I know this concept has merit because it can closely match Newtonian physics without ever breaking down.
It is a completely different concept then anything you have seen before and I do expect to be asked many questions on TR but because I have only studied TR from the point of view of acceleration, inertia, gravity and time dilation I can only answer you in terms of what I know about TR, no disrespect intended.

Back to your reply; No, I mean what causes an object to have mass from the point of view of classical physics?

Fortis

04-November-2006, 09:20 PM

tusenfem

04-November-2006, 10:32 PM

I did not mention quantum physics, I was relating to the quantum world, the micro world.

You can just take the life time of a muon (for example) and then forget it is a muon. Then just take the acceleration of a particle in the magnetic field and see how that life time changes because of the acceleration.

I downloaded stanton1, but have not have had any time to read it. Skimmed through it, not sure if anything is better explained as in your mails. But I will try to find time to go through it.

Uclock

05-November-2006, 12:47 PM

Hi Fortis,

I see nothing here that explains how you can add 'g' and 'Re'.

Can you explain further?

I would be glad to try, although I feel if you have read and understood the concept then this would not be necessary.

The difference between TR and Newtonian physics is the representation of time itself. TR measures time in m^3 where time is considered as a constant flow of volume and is measured in Us, Universal seconds. This is not the same as seconds here on Earth because we live inside a distortion of space, in other words we are trapped inside the gravity field of the Earth. A Universal second is equal to a given volume of space generated is one second. Phi = 4/3*pi*r^3 where r = 299792458 m, this gives Phi a value of 1.128 627 734*10^26 m^3 and it is this base measurement of time that is used to measure all distortions of time and space, it is the Universal clock.

In Newtonian physics ‘g’ measures the distortion caused by Earth gravity in m s^-2 but in TR the distortion of gravity is measured by the difference in radius of a quantum field between what a mass-less particle considered at rest would generate and the retarded rate the Earth generates its quantum field. At the surface of the Earth the difference between the two fields will be 9.81 m. You have to drop the seconds because it is not a real measurement of time. It has its origins inside a distortion field so in TR it cannot be a true measurement of time. The t in TR represents a multiple of Phi. So 2.5 Us is 2.5*Phi when t = 2.5 Us and the t becomes just the multiplier.

Getting back to your question, to convert from Newtonian physics to TR, you drop the measurement of seconds so g = 9.81 m s^-2 becomes g = 9.81 m. The measurement of the radius of the Earth does not include time and is already measured in m, I hope this answers your question.

Uclock

05-November-2006, 01:34 PM

Hi Trusenfem'
Thanks for your input on this thread.

You can just take the life time of a muon (for example) and then forget it is a muon. Then just take the acceleration of a particle in the magnetic field and see how that life time changes because of the acceleration.

This does not change the fact of what magnetism is according to TR. If as I suspect magnetism is a form of phased space distortion then it has to be studied purely from the point of view of TR before I can comment on its effect on dilating the time of a muon or any other particle.

I downloaded stanton1, but have not have had any time to read it. Skimmed through it, not sure if anything is better explained as in your mails. But I will try to find time to go through it.

This is the problem I seem to have with all those who try to comment on it. A quick skim through the paper is not enough to take in and understand the concept. It is so radical and such a paradigm shift in the way we think of space and time that most physicists read over it and do not grasp the concept.

If this theory is to be pulled apart then that can only be done once you have a real feel for the concept and have taken a little time to play with the math.
It runs extremely well on the engineering math program I am using but will run even better on a research math program that some of you will have access to.

There is enough math in the papers for anyone with a high school education and a math program to build and run a test sheet on the gravity field of the Sun, Earth, moon or any object. I know you are busy people but test it your self, don’t just dismiss it, you never know, the concept (http://www.wbabin.net/science/stanton.pdf) might just grow on you.

Nereid

05-November-2006, 02:02 PM

You don't need quantum physics to work out the acceleration on a muon moving in a magnetic field - classical physics works just fine.Where did I mention quantum physics?That's partly why I asked - you seem to be quite happy to use classical results, in toto, to test your ATM ideas, without any (apparent) thought to how they might be completely different.Experimental results are very important and I agree classical physics measures the expected results well and TR can match the result predicted using Newtonian gravity. The results of TR may well be different in some areas but until I study TR in those areas I won’t know will I?If you like, I could rephrase the question in terms of a moving charge, of mass m, in a magnetic field ... and ask you what the acceleration on that object would be (in the Uclock idea). Shall I?There is no need to rephrase the question because as I have already told you, I have yet to study TR in those areas, but I would like you to answer the questions I posed above, if you know the answers.

How is there a direct relationship between mass and charge?

How does known physics account for charge?

How does known physics account for mass?My bad.

However, earlier (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=858398&postcount=46) , in reply to my question, you wrote:

Nereid: In the Uclock idea, do atomic clocks and unstable 'elementary' particles (such as muons and pions) measure (or sense?) time differently? What I mean is, in exactly the same environment, would an atomic clock and a muon (say) 'record' the same passage of time? or would they give different 'answers'?

Uclock: If they are exactly the same they and they experience the same force of acceleration then they will experience the same flow of time. If they experience a different acceleration then they with experience a different passage of time.

So it seems that, without you having done any work on TR, on the differences in how atoms (in atomic clocks) and muons and pions experience time (or acceleration), you know the result. I suppose this is because if "they experience the same force of acceleration then they will experience the same flow of time" is a postulate in your idea, whereas the behaviour of charged particles in a magnetic field is not.

Have I got it right?

Anyway, let me extend the question: what sorts of clocks would not experience "the same flow of time", in the Uclock idea, even if they experienced "the same force of acceleration"?

For example, pendulum clocks, (spring) escapement clocks, quartz clocks, water clocks, clocks built using rates of change in chemical reactions as their core mechanism, ...?

Of course, if the acceleration is so great that it wrecks the clock, that clearly doesn't count.

For the three questions at the bottom of your post, why not start a thread in the Q&A section? There are many BAUTers who would be happy to have a go at answering them.

Fortis

05-November-2006, 02:15 PM

Getting back to your question, to convert from Newtonian physics to TR, you drop the measurement of seconds so g = 9.81 m s^-2 becomes g = 9.81 m. The measurement of the radius of the Earth does not include time and is already measured in m, I hope this answers your question.
Let's say that our unit of time was the minute. That would clearly change the numerical value of g, though of course the physics remain the same. If we then drop the time bit from it, we will be left with a very different value to be added to Re. This makes no sense.

Nereid

06-November-2006, 09:23 AM

OK. If a muon or pion moves in a magnetic field, its path will bend, it will accelerate. Can you please state what the equation that describes the relationship between the mass and charge of the muon (or pion), the magnetic field, and the (initial) velocity of the muon (or pion) is (in the Uclock idea)?What you are asking me for is something I cannot give because I have not even tried to investigate the quantum world very closely using the concept of True Relativity.Although the first quick look has provided an intriguing result which relates to the ratio between the distortion size of known particles. I will not comment any further.

If you wish to ask any question on acceleration, inertia and gravity, including time dilation I will be happy to answer but dealing with the quantum world requires a great deal of study using this concept that is beyond the facilities I have available at the moment.
I am not trying to get out of answering your question because I know TR will be able to provide an answer. You must realise I am the only one studying this concept so it is impossible to give you answers to things yet to be studied.

One thing I would ask of you, as someone who knows classical physics, is to explain the relationship between mass and charge, according to known physics, as per your question.
I did not think there was a direct relationship between mass and charge.
The reason is because, even in known physics each and every particle has an opposite particle, an anti-particle, so how is there a direct relationship between mass and charge?
How does known physics account for charge?
How does known physics account for mass?

Please explain?This is fine (my statement was quoted in full).

However, it seems that it was misunderstood (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=859884&postcount=52):What I would like to know is as per Nereid’s statement“Can you please state what the equation that describes the relationship between the mass and charge of the muon (or pion).”
What is this relationship that Nereid talks of? Imagine a particle of mass m and charge q moving at velocity v. We turn on a magnetic field. The particle accelerates.

In terms of m, q, and v, what acceleration does the particle experience?

This question came to me as I thought about bubble chambers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_chamber) (though asking the question about a particle in a wire chamber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_chamber) would perhaps be better).

What I didn't realise (my bad) was that, in the Uclock idea, the acceleration experienced by a particle of mass m, charge q and (initial) velocity v, in a magnetic field, cannot be calculated (or rather, Uclock has not yet derived a formula for such).

Uclock

06-November-2006, 05:25 PM

Fortis,

Let's say that our unit of time was the minute. That would clearly change the numerical value of g, though of course the physics remain the same. If we then drop the time bit from it, we will be left with a very different value to be added to Re. This makes no sense.

You seem to be completely missing the concept, probably because, likes most people you glance at it and do not grasp the concept.

TR is only related to the velocity of light in a vacuum. I use the radius of the Earth purely as a marker as the point at which the quantum field generated by the Earth reaches the surface of the Earth, then I compare this to the quantum field generated by a mass-less particle considered at rest.
The whole of TR is based on the velocity of light in a vacuum and I have stated a Universal second = a given volume of quantum field each and every second. Correct me if I am wrong but acceleration is measured at a particular point in space where at that point an object will experience a given velocity increase for each and every time measurement.

Light still has the same velocity no matter what length and time units you useto measure that velocity. TR will work even if you use zogs per jig providing you know how many zogs light travels in a jig.

Our physics is structured around metres and seconds and TR contends that when the quantum field generated by the Earth breaks the surface of the Earth it is lagging a given distance behind a quantum field that would be generated by a mass-less particle considered at rest. The gap closes the further the fields move away from the Earth so this distortion becomes less.
This whole concept is based on the velocity of light no matter what units you choose to measure that velocity.

Tony

Celestial Mechanic

06-November-2006, 06:44 PM

[Snip!]You seem to be completely missing the concept, probably because, likes most people you glance at it and do not grasp the concept. [Snip!]
You are the one missing the concept. The radius of the Earth has units of length, L. Acceleration has units of L/T2. You cannot simply add a length and an acceleration. If you say, "well I meant to add one second's worth of acceleration so that it is a length after all" then you have to (1/2)*g*(1 s)2 = 4.9 m rather than 9.81 m. And you have to justify the use of one second rather than 2 or 3 or a microsecond.

Fortis

07-November-2006, 01:41 AM

TR will work even if you use zogs per jig providing you know how many zogs light travels in a jig.
You are correct that physics knows nothing of units. It is also true, however, that equations do.

Let's take x = g + Re

First in SI.

Re = 6378135 m
g = 9.81 ms-2

so x by your reasoning (drop the seconds) is 6378135+9.81 m

On the other hand, if we use units of milliseconds,
g = 9.81x10^-6 m/ms^2

so, dropping the time unit we get x = 6378135+0.00000981 m.

Can you see the problem here?

Uclock

07-November-2006, 01:11 PM

Fortis

07-November-2006, 01:18 PM

Hi Celestial Mechanic and Fortis,

Where in this (http://www.wbabin.net/science/stanton.pdf) document am I mixing acceleration and length?

I agree presenting the concept the way I did at the beginning of this thread has led to confusion instead of helping you to grasp the concept of TR.
There is no mention of mixing dimensions in the paper on TR so it must mean you have not even read the paper. Spend a little time reading and digesting the concept of TR then you might eventually see I am not mixing dimensions.

Tony
In your opening post you said

At the Earth surface and according to Newton, gravity has a distortion of g = 9.81 m s-2 so the volume of this distortion caused by the Earth will be Vde = (4/3*pi*(Re + g)^3) – (4/3*pi*Re^3) = 5.01 x 10^15 m^3 where Re = the radius of the Earth.
These are your words? ;)

In a later post I asked

I see nothing here that explains how you can add 'g' and 'Re'.

Can you explain further?
To which you replied
Getting back to your question, to convert from Newtonian physics to TR, you drop the measurement of seconds so g = 9.81 m s^-2 becomes g = 9.81 m. The measurement of the radius of the Earth does not include time and is already measured in m, I hope this answers your question.
This looks as if you are mixing different dimensions.

Care to explain? :)

Uclock

07-November-2006, 01:35 PM

Fortis,

In your opening post you said

We have moved on from the opening posts (which are just the hook) to the paper on TR, please keep your questions related to the paper not my opening posts.

Uclock

07-November-2006, 01:37 PM

Celestial Mechanic

07-November-2006, 01:46 PM

We have moved on from the opening posts (which are just the hook) to the paper on TR, please keep your questions related to the paper not my opening posts.
Then you should have started with an accurate statement of your "TR" theory. The fact that you didn't, that you carelessly mixed units in the first exposition of your ideas, shows that you don't understand your so-called theory well enough to explain it to yourself, much less to others. I will look a bit more closely at your paper, but I strongly suspect that it is riddled with similar mistakes in handling units.

tusenfem

07-November-2006, 03:00 PM

Okay, I started with the stanton.pdf and here are my comments up to just after equation 3. I have loads of things to do, but I think that the first part is already so confuse and build on loose sand, that I did not think it necessary to continue further.

Here it goes:
I started reading the stanton.pdf, skipping the first pages of useless introduction about „a coin being not a coin anymore if one side is taken away“. Starting at the beginning where you put your theory down. Also, I do not think it because of the Greek that the volume of a sphere is 4/3 pi r3.
Now you start off with saying that the most natural way to start is to take the volume of a sphere with the radius that light travels in 1 second. (one problem here is already that you start off with a velocity in m/s and you use time 1 second, for a theory in which you want to make time measured in m3. But that to the side. Naturally everything will become different if you assume that the unit would have to be the distance that a photon travels in 1 millisecond or microsecond.

So you define your volume phi, a sphere around a massless particle in rest after 1 second. Then you say that one can measure time in units of phi. Now, here you have a problem, I think. Because you define it using the speed of a photon, which is constant, your definition of your ST goes awry. This is because now, suddenly, changing the equation around, we find that the velocity of a photon is not constant or time is not flowing linearly. Time you say is measured in some times Phi, but that means that 2 “old seconds” is 2 Phi, but that means that the velocity of the photon has decreased. Because if you had decided that the unit should be 2 seconds Phi would be 8 times bigger. But in your theory the volume is only 2 times bigger. This means that you have a problem starting at the base.

So, depending on how much time you use to set your initial radius, your theory changes inconsistently, and therefore it build on loose sand. Your “quantum of time” will change, and I am not sure why it would have to be 1/Phi.

Then you turn into the free fall acceleration of 9.8 m s-2, and you say that the “distortion radius” of 9.8 because you multiply with 1 second. Now first of all you will have to use 1 second squared, and thus the question is why you think it is allowed to use this value and not, as mentioned in another message 0.5 a t2 = 4.9 m. To remain consistent with your theory, however, I think you should not put in (randomly chosen) numbers, but you should transform the equation in which “t” stands and solve for t and then multiply the acceleration equation with the found formula for t.

Another question is why this so-called “distortion radius” should be subtracted from Phi. What is the reason for that, why is it exactly a subtraction and why not some function of “g” subtracted?

And a final comment, lose the enormous digit salat.

So basically, reading the first part of the science part of the pdf, I find that I do not understand your reasoning and that your theory is highly dependent on using 1 “classical second” and does not scale consistently using another amount of “classical seconds”.

Fortis

08-November-2006, 12:56 AM

Fortis,
We have moved on from the opening posts (which are just the hook) to the paper on TR, please keep your questions related to the paper not my opening posts.
Usually it is the OP that defines the topic of the thread. It seems reasonable to work with the content of the original post, particularly as it contains very serious problems. Do you now repudiate the contents of your original post?

Are you being deliberately evasive? (It is considered to be very bad form, and in fact against the board rules, for the starter of an ATM thread to avoid answering a direct question regarding his theory.)

Nereid

08-November-2006, 01:08 AM

NereidImagine a particle of mass m and charge q moving at velocity v. We turn on a magnetic field. The particle accelerates.

In terms of m, q, and v, what acceleration does the particle experience?

This question came to me as I thought about bubble chambers (though asking the question about a particle in a wire chamber would perhaps be better).

What I didn't realise (my bad) was that, in the Uclock idea, the acceleration experienced by a particle of mass m, charge q and (initial) velocity v, in a magnetic field, cannot be calculated (or rather, Uclock has not yet derived a formula for such).There are thousands of problems related to physics of which I have not had time to investigate with TR, one on the main ones being magnetism, or more correctly the magnetic field itself. I will not cobble together the physics of GR and QM with TR. TR will have to be studied from scratch in all areas of physics so if you keep expecting magical equations that will answer all you questions then you will have to wait until I get the right facilities to study TR properly.

I have only recently worked out the math behind gravity using TR, things will have to take there course from there but for now I can only give you answers relating to my paper.

TonyThanks.

Did you overlook my other post (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=860168&postcount=57)? There are three questions in that post (my bold):

1) So it seems that, without you having done any work on TR, on the differences in how atoms (in atomic clocks) and muons and pions experience time (or acceleration), you know the result. I suppose this is because if "they experience the same force of acceleration then they will experience the same flow of time" is a postulate in your idea, whereas the behaviour of charged particles in a magnetic field is not.

Have I got it right?

2) Anyway, let me extend the question: what sorts of clocks would not experience "the same flow of time", in the Uclock idea, even if they experienced "the same force of acceleration"?

3) For example, pendulum clocks, (spring) escapement clocks, quartz clocks, water clocks, clocks built using rates of change in chemical reactions as their core mechanism, ...?

Could you please answer these questions?