
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. 
18th December 2019, 09:25 PM  #881 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452


18th December 2019, 09:27 PM  #882 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452


18th December 2019, 09:27 PM  #883 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661


18th December 2019, 09:30 PM  #884 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661


18th December 2019, 09:33 PM  #885 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452


18th December 2019, 09:35 PM  #886 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661


18th December 2019, 09:38 PM  #887 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452


18th December 2019, 09:42 PM  #888 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452


18th December 2019, 10:20 PM  #889 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,645


__________________
The nontheoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this nontheoretical 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" 

18th December 2019, 10:42 PM  #890 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661

Finite Theory: Historical Milestone in Physics

18th December 2019, 11:05 PM  #891 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452

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”) 
18th December 2019, 11:23 PM  #892 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661


18th December 2019, 11:36 PM  #893 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,645


__________________
The nontheoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this nontheoretical 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" 

19th December 2019, 01:07 AM  #894 
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,647


__________________
20 minutes into the future This message is brabrabrought to you by zzzzik zak AndAndAnd I'm going to be back with you  on Network 23 after these realrealrealreally exciting messages (Max Headroom) follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC 

19th December 2019, 01:08 AM  #895 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661


19th December 2019, 01:35 AM  #896 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,645


__________________
The nontheoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this nontheoretical 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" 

19th December 2019, 01:38 AM  #897 
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 nontheoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this nontheoretical 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" 

19th December 2019, 01:48 AM  #898 
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,647


__________________
20 minutes into the future This message is brabrabrought to you by zzzzik zak AndAndAnd I'm going to be back with you  on Network 23 after these realrealrealreally exciting messages (Max Headroom) follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC 

19th December 2019, 02:01 AM  #899 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,645


__________________
The nontheoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this nontheoretical 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" 

19th December 2019, 02:07 AM  #900 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,645

Basically the time found by this method differs from x/c by about

__________________
The nontheoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this nontheoretical 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" 

19th December 2019, 02:17 AM  #901 
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,647

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 brabrabrought to you by zzzzik zak AndAndAnd I'm going to be back with you  on Network 23 after these realrealrealreally exciting messages (Max Headroom) follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC 

19th December 2019, 02:56 AM  #902 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661


19th December 2019, 03:50 AM  #903 
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,647

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 hterm. if you do it willynilly 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 hterm out of a summation? 
__________________
20 minutes into the future This message is brabrabrought to you by zzzzik zak AndAndAnd I'm going to be back with you  on Network 23 after these realrealrealreally exciting messages (Max Headroom) follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC 

19th December 2019, 03:58 AM  #904 
Beauf
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?" 

19th December 2019, 04:40 AM  #905 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661


19th December 2019, 05:26 AM  #906 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,645


__________________
The nontheoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this nontheoretical 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" 

19th December 2019, 05:43 AM  #907 
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,663

Is it really possible for confidence to erode below zero?
(Checks the US Politics subforum.) Never mind. 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 awith 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. The magical hterms 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. 
19th December 2019, 05:47 AM  #908 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,645

This expression
Just substitute to get Putting in those other terms is invalid. 
__________________
The nontheoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this nontheoretical 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" 

19th December 2019, 05:49 AM  #909 
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 nontheoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this nontheoretical 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" 

19th December 2019, 06:05 AM  #910 
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,663

As noted earlier, I believe philippeb8 "substituted xr_{m} for x and then set x equal to p_{m}". At the time, I thought that was poor presentation rather than complete nonsense.
As tusenfem noted, however, the introduction of the magical hterms 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. 
19th December 2019, 06:39 AM  #911 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,645


__________________
The nontheoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this nontheoretical 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" 

19th December 2019, 06:45 AM  #912 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661


19th December 2019, 08:26 AM  #913 
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: 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/xp: 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:
Further down in 718 (but not in 712, there h is undefined):
Quote:
(LT^{1})^{2}/(L^{3}M^{1}T^{2}) or M/L which is consistent with the other three terms. (to be continued) 
19th December 2019, 08:40 AM  #914 
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 
19th December 2019, 08:44 AM  #915 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452

(continued)
Again, looking at 718:
Quote:
Let's look at just two parts of the latter: As x approaches p_{m}, xp_{m} approaches zero, right? Ditto for p_{e}. So what happens in each case, in the second equation, to the numerator (the denominator remains sensible, at least with respect to p_{s} and p_{e}, 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 p_{m} is. (to be continued) 
19th December 2019, 09:22 AM  #916 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452

(continued)
718 again:
Quote:
In post #832, philippeb8 said the perfect alignment is "EarthMoonSun". 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 p_{e} to position p_{e}? 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) 
19th December 2019, 09:30 AM  #917 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661


19th December 2019, 09:51 AM  #918 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452

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 

19th December 2019, 09:58 AM  #919 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661


19th December 2019, 10:13 AM  #920 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452

(continued)
Last parts of 718:
Quote:
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:

Bookmarks 
Thread Tools  

