ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 18th December 2019, 09:25 PM   #881
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Please forget GR’s equation. I should have swapped X and Y.
Sure.

(looks around to see where X and Y are used, comes up empty).

Let me guess ... you meant x and y (and maybe y’).

Also, if we “forget GR’s equation”, where does the “GR predicts” number/value in both 712 and 718 (“3.74741 x 108m”) come from?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2019, 09:27 PM   #882
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
I wrote the equation in about half an hour. I will double check it before claiming victory.
Dude, you wrote two posts, over an hour apart. The two posts contain the same equation.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2019, 09:27 PM   #883
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Sure.



(looks around to see where X and Y are used, comes up empty).



Let me guess ... you meant x and y (and maybe y’).



Also, if we “forget GR’s equation”, where does the “GR predicts” number/value in both 712 and 718 (“3.74741 x 108m”) come from?


The results are fine. I just quickly wrote GR’s equation without paying attention to the units.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2019, 09:30 PM   #884
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Dude, you wrote two posts, over an hour apart. The two posts contain the same equation.


Then I must have spent another half hour arguing with Reality Check...
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2019, 09:33 PM   #885
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
The results are fine. I just quickly wrote GR’s equation without paying attention to the units.
Got it!

You invented the results (or derived them using Newtonian physics), wrote them down, and claimed - without any supporting evidence, logic, references, etc - that it’s a result derived from using GR.

Now that is chutzpah!
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2019, 09:35 PM   #886
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Got it!



You invented the results (or derived them using Newtonian physics), wrote them down, and claimed - without any supporting evidence, logic, references, etc - that it’s a result derived from using GR.



Now that is chutzpah!


Well GR says the speed of light is always constant, no?
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2019, 09:38 PM   #887
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Then I must have spent another half hour arguing with Reality Check...
Yes of course you did.

(checks who posted between 712 and 718, finds three posts by Robin, one each by tusenfem and Belz..., and none/zip/nada by Reality Check).

Or maybe not ...
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2019, 09:42 PM   #888
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Well GR says the speed of light is always constant, no?
I can feel a withering post by W.D.Clinger (and likely ones by The Man, RC, Robin, tusenfem, ...) coming on ...
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2019, 10:20 PM   #889
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,645
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
The results are fine. I just quickly wrote GR’s equation without paying attention to the units.
It isn't the GR equation as far as I know.

Let's call it the simple method.

Multiply 1.25 by c and add the radius of the moon.

Plug that into your final equation and see if what you get.

1.25 seconds, right?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2019, 10:42 PM   #890
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Finite Theory: Historical Milestone in Physics

Originally Posted by Robin View Post
It isn't the GR equation as far as I know.

Let's call it the simple method.

Multiply 1.25 by c and add the radius of the moon.

Plug that into your final equation and see if what you get.

1.25 seconds, right?


Oh I forgot to subtract the radius in GR’s equation... thanks Robin!

Last edited by philippeb8; 18th December 2019 at 11:00 PM.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2019, 11:05 PM   #891
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Oh I forgot to subtract the radius from GR’s result... thanks Robin!
Dude, you might want to consider investing some time in learning at least the basics of GR. Some serious time.

Otherwise you’ll continue to make real howlers, and further erode any reader here’s confidence that you have something interesting/new to say about physics.

(No, whatever FT is, it is not a “Historic Milestone in Physics”)
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2019, 11:23 PM   #892
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Dude, you might want to consider investing some time in learning at least the basics of GR. Some serious time.



Otherwise you’ll continue to make real howlers, and further erode any reader here’s confidence that you have something interesting/new to say about physics.



(No, whatever FT is, it is not a “Historic Milestone in Physics”)


There’s still a discrepancy and this lunar laser ranging experiment has nothing to do with the particle accelerator blunder and the ISS experiment.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2019, 11:36 PM   #893
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,645
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
There’s still a discrepancy .
Actually, by my calculation, using for x gets closer to 1.25 than the value you suggested.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 18th December 2019 at 11:38 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 01:07 AM   #894
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,647
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
- I did remove the minus sign in this thread to simplify but it really should be there;
Oh yes, that makes complete sense, a fudge factor that suddenly appears in a summation without any reason, and then the minus sign is the complicated part?

__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 01:08 AM   #895
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Actually, by my calculation, using for x gets closer to 1.25 than the value you suggested.


... vs FT.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 01:35 AM   #896
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,645
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
... vs FT.
Substitute for x in your final equation and you get closer to 1.25 than the value you suggested.

So if you look for a more precise value of x to solve your equation, you will get closer to
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 19th December 2019 at 01:39 AM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 01:38 AM   #897
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,645
The main thing is that the substitutions are not valid in the final equation.

If is unknown then you only need to make substitutions where occurs, but you are making substitutions where it doesn't occur.

So all you need is to substitute in the denominator and once in the numerator and that is all.

If you do this then you will get something extremely close to ct for x.

You will also find this if you do a numerical integration of the original expression.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 19th December 2019 at 01:39 AM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 01:48 AM   #898
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,647
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I should point out that your prediction differs from the prediction found by x/c by approximately the radius of the Moon.
Well, philippeb8 is taking the logarithm of a dimensional number log(x-p), so the result is nonsense, dimentionally.
(but I am sure there is going to be a "but I normalized everything, but for simplicity I decided not to write it down" nonsense.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 02:01 AM   #899
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,645
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Well, philippeb8 is taking the logarithm of a dimensional number log(x-p), so the result is nonsense, dimentionally.
.
He is taking the log of the magnitude of them, so that part is OK.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 02:07 AM   #900
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,645
Basically the time found by this method differs from x/c by about
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 02:17 AM   #901
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,647
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
He is taking the log of the magnitude of them, so that part is OK.
nope, it is still log(meters) that is coming out of that

so "shortened" for dimensional analysis
y = (m log(x) + h x) / (c ( m/x + h))

[ .. ] means dimension of ..

[y] = [m log(x) +h x] / ( [c] ( [m/x + h])

[y] = (kg log(m) + kg) / ( m/s * kg/m))

The first term on the rhs cannot be dimensionally determined, unless philippeb8 comes up with a solution to make the term inside the log dimensionless.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 02:56 AM   #902
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
nope, it is still log(meters) that is coming out of that



so "shortened" for dimensional analysis

y = (m log(x) + h x) / (c ( m/x + h))



[ .. ] means dimension of ..



[y] = [m log(x) +h x] / ( [c] ( [m/x + h])



[y] = (kg log(m) + kg) / ( m/s * kg/m))



The first term on the rhs cannot be dimensionally determined, unless philippeb8 comes up with a solution to make the term inside the log dimensionless.


Just add: “/ 1 m”
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 03:50 AM   #903
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,647
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Just add: “/ 1 m”
yes sure! and where is that supposed to come from? (Maybe while you are at it, you might just replace all those pesky variables with the numbers you want to get out, even more easy.)
if you do that in the equation for y', then you have problems with your magical h-term.
if you do it willy-nilly in the equation for y then you are just trying to make your equations fit the result you want to get.
Maybe, think first and then retry integrating y' and see where you have gone wrong? Or maybe even earlier, where you suddenly get your magical h-term out of a summation?
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Last edited by tusenfem; 19th December 2019 at 03:51 AM.
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 03:58 AM   #904
malbui
Beauf
 
malbui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,501
Maybe I’m missing something because I’m not a physicist, but isn’t it good practice to get the mathematical underpinnings of your work - all those troublesome equations - all nicely sorted out before going public with claims of having achieved a major milestone?
__________________
"But Master! Does not the fire need water too? Does not the mountain need the storm? Does not your scrotum need kicking?"
malbui is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 04:40 AM   #905
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by malbui View Post
Maybe I’m missing something because I’m not a physicist, but isn’t it good practice to get the mathematical underpinnings of your work - all those troublesome equations - all nicely sorted out before going public with claims of having achieved a major milestone?


I wrote this equation a long time ago and I applied it for the lunar laser ranging experiment and I get a decent result apparently. I just need to review correctly tusenfem’s claims during the day...
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 05:26 AM   #906
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,645
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
The main thing is that the substitutions are not valid in the final equation.

If is unknown then you only need to make substitutions where occurs, but you are making substitutions where it doesn't occur.

So all you need is to substitute in the denominator and once in the numerator and that is all.

If you do this then you will get something extremely close to ct for x.

You will also find this if you do a numerical integration of the original expression.
Just bumping this.

Why are you making substitutions in terms which do not into ?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 05:43 AM   #907
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,663
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Otherwise you’ll continue to make real howlers, and further erode any reader here’s confidence that you have something interesting/new to say about physics.
Is it really possible for confidence to erode below zero?

(Checks the US Politics subforum.) Never mind.

Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Well, philippeb8 is taking the logarithm of a dimensional number log(x-p), so the result is nonsense, dimentionally.
Suppose y = 1/x, where y is in units of foo and x in units of bar = foo-1. Then the definite integral of y=1/x between a and b is
log |b| - log |a|
with units foo*bar=foo*foo-1=1 because that definite integral is the area under the curve between x=a and x=b. In other words, the logarithm of a dimensional number, when obtained via integration, can be dimensionless, which is not necessarily nonsense.

Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
yes sure! and where is that supposed to come from? (Maybe while you are at it, you might just replace all those pesky variables with the numbers you want to get out, even more easy.)
if you do that in the equation for y', then you have problems with your magical h-term.
if you do it willy-nilly in the equation for y then you are just trying to make your equations fit the result you want to get.
Maybe, think first and then retry integrating y' and see where you have gone wrong? Or maybe even earlier, where you suddenly get your magical h-term out of a summation?
The magical h-terms that philippeb8 pulled out of thin air do appear to be nonsense.

But hey, philippeb8 spent only half an hour coming up with those equations. When you're overturning 300 years of physics, you wouldn't want to waste much time on getting your equations right.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 05:47 AM   #908
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,645
This expression




Just substitute to get



Putting in those other terms is invalid.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 05:49 AM   #909
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,645
This expression




You can substitute to get



But putting in those other terms is invalid.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 06:05 AM   #910
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,663
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
You can substitute to get
As noted earlier, I believe philippeb8 "substituted x-rm for x and then set x equal to pm". At the time, I thought that was poor presentation rather than complete nonsense.

As tusenfem noted, however, the introduction of the magical h-terms in the earlier equation appears to be complete nonsense. As you noted, the effect of introducing those terms was to convert the equation into what amounts to multiplying x by a factor that is very close to unity. The deviation of that factor from unity by a function that is slightly related to gravitational potential is analogous to, but far less accurate than, the most significant term of the relativistic correction seen in the linearized gravity approximation.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 06:39 AM   #911
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,645
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
As noted earlier, I believe philippeb8 "substituted x-rm for x and then set x equal to pm". At the time, I thought that was poor presentation rather than complete nonsense.
Well OK, but he obviously confused even himself with that, because he compared it to a surface to surface measurement and called the difference a "discrepancy".
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 06:45 AM   #912
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Well OK, but he obviously confused even himself with that, because he compared it to a surface to surface measurement and called the difference a "discrepancy".


... a discrepancy between GR and FT.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 08:26 AM   #913
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452
I'm going to go through the two main posts by philippeb8 on lunar laser ranging, in a series of posts of my own; they are 712 and 718. I will focus on 718 as it is later in time and seems to be somewhat less ambiguous etc. And <snip>s snipped.

Most, perhaps even all, of the contents of these posts has already been discussed, to one extent or another, by various posters; however, I will not attempt to provide links to those (maybe an exception or two).

Start with this, from 718:
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
According to FT, here is the speed of light reversed (or the time it takes for a photon to travel 1 meter) at each position of a photon between the surface of the Earth and the surface of the Moon, which is directly proportional to the ratio of the gravitational potential of observed photon and the gravitational potential of the observer:


Where m, p & r are the mass, position and radius of the Earth, Sun & Moon respectively
Checking for dimensions, on the RHS (L=length, M=mass, T=time):

1/c: 1/(LT-1), or T/L (consistent with "the speed of light reversed").

next the sum; taking n=1:
numerator: m/|x-p|: M/L
denominator: m/|p|: M/L
which cancel, so we are left with T/L

Then we read (in both 712 and 718):
Quote:
Whoa! The line above has the sum going from n=1 to n=3, yet here we have four terms! Where did h come from? It's not in the intro either.

Further down in 718 (but not in 712, there h is undefined):
Quote:
Also:


Dimensionally:
(LT-1)2/(L3M-1T-2)
or M/L

which is consistent with the other three terms.

(to be continued)
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 08:40 AM   #914
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Kappa - Excerpt

Effect of the time dilation in the gravitational field is a consequence of the difference in gravitational potentials. This effect is described by the relation:


where, is a mass of the gravitating object and is the distance from its centre. Under we mean the interval of local time at the point situated at distance from the centre of the source of gravitation. is the interval of time measured by the distant observer, situated at distance .

General relativistic time dilation effect is a particular case of if . Indeed, we know that in the weak field limit of General Relativity, time dilation effect in the gravitational field takes the following form*:


But due to the hypotheses of the Finite Theory, factor in is not a universal constant but depend on the superposed gravitational potentials. For example, in solar system experiments, where the gravitational potential of the Sun is the source of the strongest gravitational acceleration, we suppose . The value of can be determined from the observation of the deflection angle of light in the gravitational field of the Sun, as we will demonstrate in the next subsection.

Due to the time dilation effect, we expect to have different speed measurements of the same body by different observers. In particular, the speed of light traveling through the gravitational field will be different from the viewpoint of a local observer and from the viewpoint of a distant watcher.

According to, a distant observer notes that the light beam has a velocity, which depends on the position in the gravitational field:


In this relation, the local speed is constant due to our hypothesis. Also, we neglect the effect of length contraction in the gravitational field, which results in the equal values of length interval for both local and distant observers.

[...]

*Cheng, Relativity, Gravitation and Cosmology. A Basic Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2005

Last edited by philippeb8; 19th December 2019 at 09:13 AM.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 08:44 AM   #915
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452
(continued)

Again, looking at 718:

Quote:
According to FT, here is the speed of light reversed (or the time it takes for a photon to travel 1 meter) at each position of a photon between the surface of the Earth and the surface of the Moon, which is directly proportional to the ratio of the gravitational potential of observed photon and the gravitational potential of the observer:




Where m, p & r are the mass, position and radius of the Earth, Sun & Moon respectively:


(my hilite)

Let's look at just two parts of the latter:



As x approaches pm, |x-pm| approaches zero, right?

Ditto for pe.

So what happens in each case, in the second equation, to the numerator (the denominator remains sensible, at least with respect to ps and pe, it could even be a constant)?

The intro says "between", but that could be arbitrarily close to zero on each end, right? Blows up, right? Maybe it all gets sorted out in the next step(s), "The integral of the aforementioned equation" ...

In any case, we're left with the mystery of what pm is.

(to be continued)

Last edited by JeanTate; 19th December 2019 at 08:51 AM. Reason: added (continued)
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 09:22 AM   #916
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452
(continued)

718 again:
Quote:
The integral of the aforementioned equation will return the time it'll take for a photon to travel a certain distance while considering 3 perfectly aligned masses is:





Where m, p & r are the mass, position and radius of the Earth, Sun & Moon respectively:







Also:


"log" (base 10)? or "ln" (base e)? Does it matter which?

In post #832, philippeb8 said the perfect alignment is "Earth-Moon-Sun". So x=0 is ~6,300 km from the Earth, in the direction of the Sun. And the Sun is some 152 million km from x=0.

So what is "the time it'll take for a photon to travel a certain distance" where that distance is from position pe to position -pe?

If I plug this in to the above, I get, for just one term:



Which is log(0), right?

Does this mean that a photon leaving the surface of the Earth gets trapped ~12,600 km away (in the direction of the Sun, or Moon)?

I'm confused.

(to be continued)
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 09:30 AM   #917
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
(continued)

718 again:


"log" (base 10)? or "ln" (base e)? Does it matter which?

In post #832, philippeb8 said the perfect alignment is "Earth-Moon-Sun". So x=0 is ~6,300 km from the Earth, in the direction of the Sun. And the Sun is some 152 million km from x=0.

So what is "the time it'll take for a photon to travel a certain distance" where that distance is from position pe to position -pe?

If I plug this in to the above, I get, for just one term:



Which is log(0), right?

Does this mean that a photon leaving the surface of the Earth gets trapped ~12,600 km away (in the direction of the Sun, or Moon)?

I'm confused.

(to be continued)
So the position of the observer is: 0 m;
We are looking for the time it takes for a photon to reach position: x - r_m;
And "x" is the position of the Moon (p_m) we would like to solve.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 09:51 AM   #918
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
So the position of the observer is: 0 m;
We are looking for the time it takes for a photon to reach position: x - r_m;
And "x" is the position of the Moon (p_m) we would like to solve.
Thanks for the clarification.

So the p refer to the position of the centre of the Earth, Sun, and Moon?

If I try to measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon, using a laser set up at ~-6,300 km from "the position of the observer" - i.e. at the centre of the Earth - I will not get an answer, using your equation? Of course, we need to assume a really narrow tube right through to the centre of the Earth, or a transparent Earth ...

Last edited by JeanTate; 19th December 2019 at 09:54 AM. Reason: not opposite side, centre of the Earth; fixed some typos
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 09:58 AM   #919
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Thanks for the clarification.

So the p refer to the position of the centre of the Earth, Sun, and Moon?

If I try to measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon, using a laser set up at ~-6,300 km from "the position of the observer" - i.e. at the centre of the Earth from the observer - I will not get an answer, using your equation? If course, we need to assume a really narrow tube right through to the centre of the Earth, or a transparent Earth ...
- The position refers to the center of the mass;
- If you want to flip the position of the observer on the Earth, you'll have to change the sign of p_e and shift the Moon farther away.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2019, 10:13 AM   #920
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452
(continued)

Last parts of 718:
Quote:
Where m, p & r are the mass, position and radius of the Earth, Sun & Moon respectively:







Also:




Since the position of the Moon is the unknown we would like to solve then the following equation will be the one to be used:
Other than to check the equation for y, nothing to add here, that hasn't already been covered. For example: philippeb8 has not yet given unambiguous sources for any of the values.

This last part has been fairly well covered in many posts; "cherry picking" is the mildest thing one can say, but bovine excrement of varying strengths is more accurate I feel:
Quote:
Given the time for the laser to travel between the surface of the Earth and the surface of the Moon is:


Then FT predicts the position of the Moon to be (approximately):


While GR predicts the position of the Moon to be:


So there is a discrepancy between the two theories at that scale already. The physics books of the last 300 years need to be rewritten because the notion of light years is another important blunder.
(concluded, maybe)
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:35 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.