Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Finite Theory: Historical Milestone in Physics

 User Name Remember Me? Password

 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.
 22nd December 2019, 10:06 AM #1081 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by The Man Wait, so now you are claiming the speed of light doesn't change locally for the radar gun? I wasn’t sure what you were referring to. Yes the speed of light will change proportional to the altitude, as seen by the cop. Quote: As noted... philippeb8, a central problem for your notions is that in order for the speed of light to change (locally) the electromagnetic properties of space-time would have to change (locally). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability "that attenuates"? "that attenuates" what? Once again the obfuscation appears deliberate. Also if the change in the speed of light philippeb8 refers to is just the coordinate speed and not the local speed. Then again this seems like some kind of performance art to argue for relativity but by being deliberately obscure and evasive make it seem like you are arguing against relativity. Just to see who will argue against you. The Earth’s co-moving framework attenuates because it intersects with the Sun’s co-moving framework at high altitudes, or about the altitude of geostationary satellites as noted in previous posts.
 22nd December 2019, 10:19 AM #1082 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 Originally Posted by philippeb8 I wasn’t sure what you were referring to. Yes the speed of light will change proportional to the altitude, as seen by the cop. So now you are claiming the local speed of light changes? Originally Posted by philippeb8 The Earth’s co-moving framework attenuates because it intersects with the Sun’s co-moving framework at high altitudes, or about the altitude of geostationary satellites as noted in previous posts. Again "The Earth’s co-moving framework attenuates" what? and how? Or do you simply mean "The Earth’s co-moving framework" is 'attenuated' as "it intersects with the Sun’s co-moving framework at high altitudes, or about the altitude of geostationary satellites as noted in previous posts". If that just means the suns gravity also pulls on ****, you could just say that. As usual the obfuscation appears deliberate. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ
 22nd December 2019, 10:23 AM #1083 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by The Man So FT can't "predict” the proper light bending? No and it’s impossible without knowing the correct perihelion shift before or vice-versa. Quote: It doesn't matter what it needs for whatever calculations you want to make. If FT accepts that length contraction is a element of "proper light bending" then it is a factor whether you calculate with it or from it. The $h = -c^2/2G$ is used to get the exact same predictions as GR, where GR considers both light bending and length contraction. But FT says basically $h = -6.27 \times 10^{26}kg/m$ and that the precision of this number can be improved. “h” is thus independent from “c” and “G” according to FT.
 22nd December 2019, 10:28 AM #1084 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 Originally Posted by philippeb8 No and it’s impossible without knowing the correct perihelion shift before or vice-versa. But GR can make that prediction. Got any experimental indication said prediction if incorrect? Originally Posted by philippeb8 The $h = -c^2/2G$ is used to get the exact same predictions as GR, where GR considers both light bending and length contraction. But FT says basically $h = -6.27 \times 10^{26}kg/m$ and that the precision of this number can be improved. “h” is thus independent from “c” and “G” according to FT. Why FT can't make such a prediction, to even be experimentally verified, is just (one of) FT's problem(s). ETA: "“h” is thus independent from “c” and “G” according to FT." Then your FT math is deliberately erroneous to make the calculation of "h" from "c" and "G", doubly so, just so it can emulate GR that it purports to overthrow. Purporting to overthrow GR while using GR is one of those self-inconsistencies I cautioned about before. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ Last edited by The Man; 22nd December 2019 at 10:35 AM.
 22nd December 2019, 10:45 AM #1085 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by The Man Well , it looks like the ISS does use Sagnac effect gyroscopes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser_gyroscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_l...e_applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect So any effect philippeb8 is looking might be apparent in their navigational and RCS systems. That they are so widely used and no unique or 300 years of physics overturning effects noted. Tends to indicate the efficacy of said 300 years of physics. The ISS experiment I propose is also a one way speed of light test. The MM or the Sagnac are bidirectional speed of light tests. So if light slows down in one direction then it will speed up in the opposite direction. But now I’m wondering if the Highfinesse apparatus I was suggesting uses the MM setup internally in order to measure the correct wavelength... I’ll have to double check this.
 22nd December 2019, 11:02 AM #1086 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by The Man But GR can make that prediction. Got any experimental indication said prediction if incorrect? GR can make the light bending prediction because it was tuned up with the perihelion shift before. This means GR’s light bending “prediction” is the biggest deliberate hoax humankind ever experienced in history for so long. Quote: Why FT can't make such a prediction, to even be experimentally verified, is just (one of) FT's problem(s). You can only make the prediction but adjusting “h” with the perihelion shift beforehand. Quote: ETA: "“h” is thus independent from “c” and “G” according to FT." Then your FT math is deliberately erroneous to make the calculation of "h" from "c" and "G", doubly so, just so it can emulate GR that it purports to overthrow. Yes “h” based on “c” and “G” is an emulation. Quote: Purporting to overthrow GR while using GR is one of those self-inconsistencies I cautioned about before. So the ultimate goal is to remap the atlas of the universe with better precision and stop research in dark matter and dark energy, saving taxpayers a huge amount of money or we can put in useful research in gravitons for example. We need to jumpstart astrophysics and FT offers that!
 22nd December 2019, 12:45 PM #1087 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 Originally Posted by philippeb8 The ISS experiment I propose is also a one way speed of light test. The MM or the Sagnac are bidirectional speed of light tests. So if light slows down in one direction then it will speed up in the opposite direction. But now I’m wondering if the Highfinesse apparatus I was suggesting uses the MM setup internally in order to measure the correct wavelength... I’ll have to double check this. It's not a speed test, it's an interferometer and thus measures the phase shift between the two paths. Since it does measure such a phase shift when rotated, what is happening to the path in one direction isn't canceled by the reverse happening in the other direction. Whether you want that to be speed, time dilation or whatever. Its mere operation makes your objection above moot. Also, and more fundamentally, that it detects such rotation, demonstrates that rotation is non-inertial as others have tried to explain to you. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ Last edited by The Man; 22nd December 2019 at 01:34 PM. Reason: typo
 22nd December 2019, 01:33 PM #1088 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 Originally Posted by philippeb8 GR can make the light bending prediction because it was tuned up with the perihelion shift before. No, but because the curvature of light in an accelerated box model the 1913 calculation was based on doesn't conserve energy and momentum locally. Now if your claim is simply that fact didn't turn up until Einstein completed general relativity and made his projections of the test in 1915. Then, so what? Originally Posted by philippeb8 This means GR’s light bending “prediction” is the biggest deliberate hoax humankind ever experienced in history for so long. Are you now claiming that general relativity doesn't require length contraction for the calculation as you stated before? Or is it that you feel GR shouldn't locally conserve energy and momentum. If not, then the calculation is consistent with the theory for various reasons (even your own) and thus not a "hoax" Originally Posted by philippeb8 You can only make the prediction but adjusting “h” with the perihelion shift beforehand. Well you have the same "perihelion shift before" you claim Einstein had. so make the prediction. Originally Posted by philippeb8 Yes “h” based on “c” and “G” is an emulation. Emulating GR isn't overturning it, it is just imitating it and so far rather poorly. Also since you claim "h" is independent of "c" and "G" in your FT. It is imitating it in a way you explicitly assert is inconsistent with your FT. Originally Posted by philippeb8 So the ultimate goal is to remap the atlas of the universe with better precision and stop research in dark matter and dark energy, saving taxpayers a huge amount of money or we can put in useful research in gravitons for example. We need to jumpstart astrophysics and FT offers that! Who cares what your "ultimate goal is". You not only can't even seem to get up to the starting line you continue to approach a starting gate that even you explicitly assert is for the wrong race (is inconsistent with your FT). __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ
 22nd December 2019, 01:45 PM #1089 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by The Man It's not a speed test, it's an interferometer and thus measures the phase shift between the two paths. Since it does measure such a phase shift when rotated, what is happening to the path in one direction isn't canceled by the reverse happening in the other direction. Whether you want that to be speed, time dilation or whatever. Its mere operation makes your objection above moot. Also, and more fundamentally, that it detects such rotation, demonstrates that rotation is non-inertial as others have tried to explain to you. I'm trying to review the precision of these laser gyroscopes but they won't mention it: https://aerospace.honeywell.com/cont...?download=true
 22nd December 2019, 01:55 PM #1090 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 Originally Posted by philippeb8 I'm trying to review the precision of these laser gyroscopes but they won't mention it: https://aerospace.honeywell.com/cont...?download=true So, contact them. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ
 22nd December 2019, 02:24 PM #1091 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by The Man No, but because the curvature of light in an accelerated box model the 1913 calculation was based on doesn't conserve energy and momentum locally. Now if your claim is simply that fact didn't turn up until Einstein completed general relativity and made his projections of the test in 1915. Then, so what? ? Quote: Are you now claiming that general relativity doesn't require length contraction for the calculation as you stated before? Or is it that you feel GR shouldn't locally conserve energy and momentum. If not, then the calculation is consistent with the theory for various reasons (even your own) and thus not a "hoax" I neither referred to the energy and momentum nor said GR doesn't require length contraction because it does need both time dilation and length contraction. I'm saying FT can get a better prediction of the light bending using a better measurement of the perihelion shift (or vice-versa). Quote: Well you have the same "perihelion shift before" you claim Einstein had. so make the prediction. I need an extremely precise measurement of the perihelion shift first to get an extremely precise light bending prediction. Quote: Emulating GR isn't overturning it, it is just imitating it and so far rather poorly. Also since you claim "h" is independent of "c" and "G" in your FT. It is imitating it in a way you explicitly assert is inconsistent with your FT. It emulates GR at the solar system scale but it extends to explain also the rotation curve, the expansion of the universe and the mass of the invisible universe. Quote: Who cares what your "ultimate goal is". You not only can't even seem to get up to the starting line you continue to approach a starting gate that even you explicitly assert is for the wrong race (is inconsistent with your FT). There can't be any inconsistency because FT is deductive. I've written down the perihelion shift, the light bending, the rotation curve, the mass of the invisible universe and what's not written down is the maths of the expansion of the universe but it also explains it. I've noted that I need to verify the precision of: - Cooling of the atoms aboard the ISS - Laser gyroscopes aboard the ISS
 22nd December 2019, 02:50 PM #1092 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 Originally Posted by philippeb8 ? I neither referred to the energy and momentum nor said GR doesn't require length contraction because it does need both time dilation and length contraction. Great, so it was not a hoax then. Originally Posted by philippeb8 I'm saying FT can get a better prediction of the light bending using a better measurement of the perihelion shift (or vice-versa). "perihelion shift" of what, mercury? You've already said GR got a prediction from the "perihelion shift" before 1915. So if FT can't do at least that good with the same "perihelion shift" there ain't no call to assert "FT can get a better prediction" under any conditions. Originally Posted by philippeb8 I need an extremely precise measurement of the perihelion shift first to get an extremely precise light bending prediction. You say GR didn't need that to make the 1915 calculation, so make a similarly precise calculation with the "perihelion shift" you claim GR 'hoaxed' with. Originally Posted by philippeb8 It emulates GR at the solar system scale but it extends to explain also the rotation curve, the expansion of the universe and the mass of the invisible universe. Doesn't even seem to emulate GR even just for the calculation of the bending of light. Let alone anything else. Originally Posted by philippeb8 There can't be any inconsistency because FT is deductive. You assert the inconsistency explicitly yourself, that your "h" is independent of "c" and "G" yet your equation has no such independence. Why not just use the time to cross your bedroom squared over the length of your bedroom squared then the result times the force your last fart applied to your underwear times, what, 1026* Sounds ridiculous doesn't it, guess what could be the only thing even more ridiculous? Calculating your "h" from constants you explicitly state it is independent of. *In units of just force, space and time c2/2G works out to Newton Second2 Meter-2 Originally Posted by philippeb8 I've written down the perihelion shift, the light bending, the rotation curve, the mass of the invisible universe and what's not written down is the maths of the expansion of the universe but it also explains it. I've noted that I need to verify the precision of: - Cooling of the atoms aboard the ISS - Laser gyroscopes aboard the ISS Great, well, at least let us know when your math for "h" is consistent with your assertion of the independence of "h". No one can agree with you until you can, at the least, agree with just yourself. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ Last edited by The Man; 22nd December 2019 at 02:58 PM. Reason: typos & typos
 22nd December 2019, 03:44 PM #1093 JeanTate Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 3,452 Originally Posted by philippeb8 The ISS experiment I propose is also a one way speed of light test. The MM or the Sagnac are bidirectional speed of light tests. So if light slows down in one direction then it will speed up in the opposite direction. Except that the wavelength instrument you have proposed has, at its heart, a two-way interferometer. Quote: But now I’m wondering if the Highfinesse apparatus I was suggesting uses the MM setup internally in order to measure the correct wavelength... I’ll have to double check this. Yeah, that might be a good idea.
 22nd December 2019, 03:52 PM #1094 JeanTate Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 3,452 Originally Posted by philippeb8 ? I'm saying FT can get a better prediction of the light bending using a better measurement of the perihelion shift (or vice-versa). I need an extremely precise measurement of the perihelion shift first to get an extremely precise light bending prediction. I do not recall reading anything in this thread on what FT does (or does not) predict for "the perihelion shift" or "light bending". Perhaps you could point to the post, or posts, which contain such? FWIW, questions about these have been asked, by several IS members, almost since this thread started. Quote: It emulates GR at the solar system scale but it extends to explain also the rotation curve, the expansion of the universe and the mass of the invisible universe. Again, claims you have made, many times. But also again, claims you have not offered evidence for. Certainly not evidence of the "here are the observations, here are the FT predictions, and here are the derivations of such" kind. Quote: There can't be any inconsistency because FT is deductive. I've written down the perihelion shift, the light bending, the rotation curve, the mass of the invisible universe and what's not written down is the maths of the expansion of the universe but it also explains it. You may indeed have written down all kinds of things. However, none of them appear in this ISF thread (if they do, please point to the relevant posts). And you wonder why I call FT a joke?
 22nd December 2019, 03:59 PM #1095 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Perihelion Shift & Light Bending So this is the perihelion shift: $\delta \phi = \frac{6\pi G M}{c^2 a (1-e^2)} = -\,\frac{3\pi M}{a h_{solar} (1-e^2)} = 43 \text{arcsec per Julian century}$ Where: $a$ is the semi-major axis of the orbit; $e$ is it's eccentricity. And this is the light bending: $\delta_{obs} = \frac{4 G M_{sun}}{c^2 r_{sun}} = - \frac{2 M_{sun}}{h_{solar} r_{sun}} = 0.847\times 10^{-5}\, \text{rad}$ So to predict one then you solve $h_{solar}$ in the other with its observation and vice-versa.
 22nd December 2019, 04:14 PM #1096 JeanTate Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 3,452 Originally Posted by philippeb8 So this is the perihelion shift: Of what? Quote: $\delta \phi = \frac{6\pi G M}{c^2 a (1-e^2)} = -\,\frac{3\pi M}{a h_{solar} (1-e^2)} = 43 \text{arcsec per Julian century}$ Where: $a$ is the semi-major axis of the orbit; $e$ is it's eccentricity. And M is? And hsolar is? How about c? G? Where is the derivation, from first FT principles? Quote: And this is the light bending: $\delta_{obs} = \frac{4 G M_{sun}}{c^2 r_{sun}} = - \frac{2 M_{sun}}{h_{solar} r_{sun}} = 0.847\times 10^{-5}\, \text{rad}$ Yet more evidence that this FT thing is just a joke. The extent to which "light" is "bent" depends on the impact angle, or the angular distance from the centre of the Sun. Something not in this equation. Unless, of course, "light bending" is yet another term with an idiosyncratic meaning that has not been revealed in this thread (so far). Also, no derivation from first FT principles. Quote: So to predict one then you solve $h_{solar}$ in the other with its observation and vice-versa. So you say. I say GIGO ....
 22nd December 2019, 09:53 PM #1097 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by philippeb8 So this is the perihelion shift: $\delta \phi = \frac{6\pi G M}{c^2 a (1-e^2)} = -\,\frac{3\pi M}{a h_{solar} (1-e^2)} = 43 \text{arcsec per Julian century}$ Where: $a$ is the semi-major axis of the orbit; $e$ is it's eccentricity. And this is the light bending: $\delta_{obs} = \frac{4 G M_{sun}}{c^2 r_{sun}} = - \frac{2 M_{sun}}{h_{solar} r_{sun}} = 0.847\times 10^{-5}\, \text{rad}$ So to predict one then you solve $h_{solar}$ in the other with its observation and vice-versa. In other words the perihelion shift can be solved with: $\delta \phi = \frac{3 \ensuremath{\pi}{\delta_{obs}} {r_s}}{2 a\, \left( 1-{{e}^{2}}\right) }$ $\delta \phi = 5.01964 \times 10^{-7} rad/cycle$ And the light bending with: $\delta_{obs} = \frac{2 \left( a\, {\delta \phi} {{e}^{2}}-a\, {\delta \phi}\right) }{3 \ensuremath{\pi}{r_s}}$ $\delta_{obs} = 8.4919 \times 10^{-6} rad$ Last edited by philippeb8; 22nd December 2019 at 10:03 PM.
 23rd December 2019, 03:45 AM #1098 tusenfem Master Poster     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,647 Originally Posted by philippeb8 In other words the perihelion shift can be solved with: $\delta \phi = \frac{3 \ensuremath{\pi}{\delta_{obs}} {r_s}}{2 a\, \left( 1-{{e}^{2}}\right) }$ $\delta \phi = 5.01964 \times 10^{-7} rad/cycle$ And the light bending with: $\delta_{obs} = \frac{2 \left( a\, {\delta \phi} {{e}^{2}}-a\, {\delta \phi}\right) }{3 \ensuremath{\pi}{r_s}}$ $\delta_{obs} = 8.4919 \times 10^{-6} rad$ I guess it is the perihelion shift of the Sun with respect to the centre of our galaxy. __________________ 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
 23rd December 2019, 05:30 AM #1099 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by philippeb8 In other words the perihelion shift can be solved with: $\delta \phi = \frac{3 \ensuremath{\pi}{\delta_{obs}} {r_s}}{2 a\, \left( 1-{{e}^{2}}\right) }$ $\delta \phi = 5.01964 \times 10^{-7} rad/cycle$ - I should note that: $\delta \phi = 42.9888 \text{arcsec per Julian century}$ Quote: And the light bending with: $\delta_{obs} = \frac{2 \left( a\, {\delta \phi} {{e}^{2}}-a\, {\delta \phi}\right) }{3 \ensuremath{\pi}{r_s}}$ $\delta_{obs} = 8.4919 \times 10^{-6} rad$ - These numbers are perfectly interchangeable
 23rd December 2019, 05:37 AM #1100 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by JeanTate Of what? The perihelion shift of Mercury. Quote: And M is? Mass of the Sun. Quote: And hsolar is? $h_{solar} = -c^2/2G$ Quote: How about c? G? Where is the derivation, from first FT principles? The derivation is a little more complex so I left it in the book. Quote: Yet more evidence that this FT thing is just a joke. The extent to which "light" is "bent" depends on the impact angle, or the angular distance from the centre of the Sun. Something not in this equation. Unless, of course, "light bending" is yet another term with an idiosyncratic meaning that has not been revealed in this thread (so far). Also, no derivation from first FT principles. So you say. I say GIGO ....
 23rd December 2019, 08:38 AM #1101 JeanTate Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 3,452 And the FT predicted perihelion shift for Venus is? Ditto Eros. And the Earth. And Mars. Curious that you don't provide even a hint of the derivation. More curious: no comment on "light bending"! What is the predicted perihelion shift for the double pulsar?
 23rd December 2019, 11:32 AM #1102 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Originally Posted by The Man No, but because the curvature of light in an accelerated box model the 1913 calculation was based on doesn't conserve energy and momentum locally. Now if your claim is simply that fact didn't turn up until Einstein completed general relativity and made his projections of the test in 1915. Then, so what? ? Since this seems to be news to you, these might help. https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teach...way/index.html https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teach...dex.html#L1739 https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teach...dex.html#L2905 Basically, while a moving box or elevator was often used by Einstein as a thought experiment to examine SR principles. The generalization of SR to non-inertial frames naturally (and by the equivalence principle) led to the examination of those concepts in an accelerated box. An observer in an accelerated box sees the path of light curve as they would see the path curve in a gravitational field. Since the box is accelerated (gets energy and momentum from outside the box) the model doesn't conserve energy and momentum locally. So it can't in and of itself be a complete and accurate description. It does however give the same deflection of light as historical calculations for the bending of light based on strictly Newtonian gravity. As an attempt at a more generalized form of SR both time dilation and length contraction would be factors tough in an instantaneous (for these iterations) flat space-time background (as per SR). In other words, a series of SR boosts. What wasn't considered at that time was the lack of a flat space time for the instantaneous SR like considerations iterated by the accelerating box examples. That instantaneous non-Euclidean portion ends up being the same as the Newtonian portion, hence the finial prediction being twice the previous. My mistake was mis-remembering the non-Euclidean portion as the first prediction and the Newtonian portion (the gravitational potential of the light itself) being added later, when it was the other way around. Your mistake (and hence your hoax nonsense) appears to just have been you not knowing much about it, at all. One thing this does show is the absolute criticality of the non-Euclidean geometry to GR making accurate calculations. In this case you have to plot the Newtonian divergence onto the curved space-time of the suns gravity well in order to get the right answer (when not in the Newtonian or weak field limits). ETA: I would like to point out that in just units of force, space and time G has the units Meter4 Newton-1 Second-4 or is the speed of light to the 4th power divided by the Planck force (c4 FP-1). So just the gravitational constant itself gives a hint at the space-time four dimensional nature of gravity. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ Last edited by The Man; 23rd December 2019 at 12:18 PM. Reason: got the unit of G wrong
 23rd December 2019, 02:46 PM #1103 JeanTate Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 3,452 Here's something interesting ... Originally Posted by philippeb8 Where m, p & r are the mass, position and radius of the Earth, Sun & Moon respectively: $m_e= 5.9736 \times {{10}^{24}}kg$ $m_s= 1.98892 \times {{10}^{30}}kg$ $m_m= 7.348 \times {{10}^{22}}kg$ $p_e= -6.371 \times {{10}^{6}}m$ $p_s= 1.52 \times {{10}^{11}}m$ $r_m= 1737500m$ Also: $c=299792458 m/s$ $G=6.67408 \times {{10}^{-11}} m^3 kg^{-1} s^{-2}$ $h=\frac{{{c}^{2}}}{2 G}$ Originally Posted by philippeb8 The $h = -c^2/2G$ is used to get the exact same predictions as GR, where GR considers both light bending and length contraction. But FT says basically $h = -6.27 \times 10^{26}kg/m$ and that the precision of this number can be improved. “h” is thus independent from “c” and “G” according to FT. My small envelope says that h = 6.73x1026 kg/m, based on values given in the first quoted post, and that this value is what is used to estimate the distance to the Moon ...
 23rd December 2019, 04:09 PM #1104 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 Originally Posted by JeanTate Here's something interesting ... Originally Posted by philippeb8 Where m, p & r are the mass, position and radius of the Earth, Sun & Moon respectively: $m_e= 5.9736 \times {{10}^{24}}kg$ $m_s= 1.98892 \times {{10}^{30}}kg$ $m_m= 7.348 \times {{10}^{22}}kg$ $p_e= -6.371 \times {{10}^{6}}m$ $p_s= 1.52 \times {{10}^{11}}m$ $r_m= 1737500m$ Also: $c=299792458 m/s$ $G=6.67408 \times {{10}^{-11}} m^3 kg^{-1} s^{-2}$ $h=\frac{{{c}^{2}}}{2 G}$ Originally Posted by philippeb8 The $h = -c^2/2G$ is used to get the exact same predictions as GR, where GR considers both light bending and length contraction. But FT says basically $h = -6.27 \times 10^{26}kg/m$ and that the precision of this number can be improved. “h” is thus independent from “c” and “G” according to FT. My small envelope says that h = 6.73x1026 kg/m, based on values given in the first quoted post, and that this value is what is used to estimate the distance to the Moon ... Well, the $h = -c^2/2G$ is just his factor "to get the exact same predictions as GR". For whatever he is calculating in that particular instance. Which isn't very useful because if you want to get the prediction of GR you should use GR and if you are going to claim your math or notions gives different predictions than GR you need to have your math just give its predictions based on those notions. Tweaking your math to get numbers for 300 year of physics you claim to be overturning just shows you are doing numerology and not math. Further, philippeb8 says his "h" represent the mass outside the visible universe in units of kg/m. Man, that is a crap way of trying to represent any distribution of mass, in the visible universe or out. What is it all in a row in one spatial dimension? Since mater is spatially 3 dimensional your going to want at least a three dimensional distribution. So kg/m3 would be the units to represent such a distribution. I expect he might have tried that but then the end units for his equations wouldn't come out the way he wanted. So you get some representation of mass along one dimension. Which again tends to indicate he's doing numerology and not math. Same thing he did with the 1/meter factor he had before to get the end units he wanted. The problem is it (the 1/a particular unit of distance) doesn't work when you change or mix systems of units. The reason for my furlong & fortnight question before. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ
 23rd December 2019, 09:37 PM #1105 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by The Man Well, the $h = -c^2/2G$ is just his factor "to get the exact same predictions as GR". For whatever he is calculating in that particular instance. Which isn't very useful because if you want to get the prediction of GR you should use GR and if you are going to claim your math or notions gives different predictions than GR you need to have your math just give its predictions based on those notions. Tweaking your math to get numbers for 300 year of physics you claim to be overturning just shows you are doing numerology and not math. I just proved it’s impossible to get the right light bending without knowing in advance the perihelion shift. Quote: Further, philippeb8 says his "h" represent the mass outside the visible universe in units of kg/m. Man, that is a crap way of trying to represent any distribution of mass, in the visible universe or out. What is it all in a row in one spatial dimension? Since mater is spatially 3 dimensional your going to want at least a three dimensional distribution. So kg/m3 would be the units to represent such a distribution. I expect he might have tried that but then the end units for his equations wouldn't come out the way he wanted. So you get some representation of mass along one dimension. Which again tends to indicate he's doing numerology and not math. Same thing he did with the 1/meter factor he had before to get the end units he wanted. The problem is it (the 1/a particular unit of distance) doesn't work when you change or mix systems of units. The reason for my furlong & fortnight question before. The gravitational potential due to a solid sphere is exactly the same thing: https://sciphy.in/gravitational-pote...-solid-sphere/
 24th December 2019, 06:20 AM #1106 JeanTate Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 3,452 Originally Posted by philippeb8 I just proved it’s impossible to get the right light bending without knowing in advance the perihelion shift. You did? What definition of “light bending” did you use? Did you show how the FT expressions for light bending and perihelion shift can be derived, objectively and unambiguously, from first FT principles? Another addition to the long list of idiosyncratic terms: “prove”.
 24th December 2019, 06:57 AM #1108 JeanTate Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 3,452 Originally Posted by philippeb8 The gravitational potential due to a solid sphere is exactly the same thing: https://sciphy.in/gravitational-pote...-solid-sphere/ Yet the Sun is not a solid sphere! And no one - perhaps not even you - has any idea how to apply FT to a contact binary.
 24th December 2019, 10:54 AM #1109 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 Originally Posted by philippeb8 I just proved it’s impossible to get the right light bending without knowing in advance the perihelion shift. Who cares if your FT can't "get the right light bending without knowing in advance the perihelion shift"? That's just a problem for you and your FT. Further you do understand that the 42.97 arcsec/Julian century isn't the precession of the perihelion for Mercury but just the GR Schwarzschild-like contribution to that precession, don't you? The full precession is 574.10 arcsec/Julian century, the majority coming from the pull of other solar bodies. Originally Posted by philippeb8 The gravitational potential due to a solid sphere is exactly the same thing: https://sciphy.in/gravitational-pote...-solid-sphere/ Horse hockey, gravitational potential is defined as the energy needed to move a test mass in a gravitational field, per unit of that test mass. Same as electrical potential is the energy need to move a test charge in an electrical field per unit charge. As such it has units of energy over mass, not mass over simply distance. At least try to learn the 300 years of physics you want to overthrow. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ Last edited by The Man; 24th December 2019 at 10:57 AM. Reason: added "per unit of that test mass" and "per unit charge" for clarity
 24th December 2019, 12:34 PM #1110 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Finite Theory: Historical Milestone in Physics Originally Posted by The Man Who cares if your FT can't "get the right light bending without knowing in advance the perihelion shift"? That's just a problem for you and your FT. ... This is also the proof the light bending “prediction” of GR is a hoax. So if you’d rather put your bet on some old deprecated 1929 Ford engine against a brand new Bugatti one then you’re welcome to. Quote: Further you do understand that the 42.97 arcsec/Julian century isn't the precession of the perihelion for Mercury but just the GR Schwarzschild-like contribution to that precession, don't you? The full precession is 574.10 arcsec/Julian century, the majority coming from the pull of other solar bodies. Of course. Quote: Horse hockey, gravitational potential is defined as the energy needed to move a test mass in a gravitational field, per unit of that test mass. Same as electrical potential is the energy need to move a test charge in an electrical field per unit charge. As such it has units of energy over mass, not mass over simply distance. At least try to learn the 300 years of physics you want to overthrow. Never heard of point masses and spherical coordinates? Last edited by philippeb8; 24th December 2019 at 12:40 PM.
 24th December 2019, 01:19 PM #1111 JeanTate Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 3,452 Originally Posted by The Man Horse hockey, gravitational potential is defined as the energy needed to move a test mass in a gravitational field, per unit of that test mass. Same as electrical potential is the energy need to move a test charge in an electrical field per unit charge. As such it has units of energy over mass, not mass over simply distance. At least try to learn the 300 years of physics you want to overthrow. (my hilite) However ... ... as we have seen over and over again, FT (per the OP) has idiosyncratic definitions and meanings for a great many standard terms found in physics textbooks. Unless and until we see the axioms (or whatever) of FT, and a rigorous, unambigous derivation of any of the so-called results presented in this thread, we cannot know what we are being fooled by.
 24th December 2019, 01:24 PM #1112 JeanTate Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 3,452 Originally Posted by philippeb8 ... This is also the proof the light bending “prediction” of GR is a hoax. So you say. Without any evidence whatsoever. Quote: Originally Posted by Tha Man Further you do understand that the 42.97 arcsec/Julian century isn't the precession of the perihelion for Mercury but just the GR Schwarzschild-like contribution to that precession, don't you? The full precession is 574.10 arcsec/Julian century, the majority coming from the pull of other solar bodies. Of course. And you have presented an FT-based derivation (rigorously going from first principles to results, with cites for all sources such as the masses of the planets) of the full precession of Mercury, where exactly? Without such, FT is as I have said all along, a joke.
 24th December 2019, 01:51 PM #1113 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 Originally Posted by philippeb8 ... This is also the proof the light bending “prediction” of GR is a hoax. Nope you can't prove anything about GR with your FT numerology. If you think just calculating the same numerical value as GR by something other than GR, says something about GR. Then you are in fact just doing numerology. ETA: Since you don’t seem to get the difference between math and numerology yet, try this. If I take the time it takes me to drive to the nearest McDonald's squared times the force it takes to open their door all over the distance to their corporate headquarters. I could end up with the numerical value for the mass of a Big Mac (pre cooked). In correct units of force distance and time, however, what could that possibly say about a Big Mac or MacDonald’s. That’s the difference between math and numerology, a fixation on just the numerical value as if it had some significance in and of itself, bereft of how it was derived. ETA2: Now if instead I picked up and hurled a Big Mac (pre cooked) and took the average force I applied times the time I applied that force squared over the distance that force was applied. I'd get the same numerical value in the same units but this time it would be representative of and the mass of that Big Mac. That's math. Originally Posted by philippeb8 So if you’d rather put your bet on some old deprecated 1929 Ford engine against a brand new Bugatti one then you’re welcome to. Absolutely, particularly when the "old deprecated 1929 Ford engine" still runs after all this time and the "brand new Bugatti" didn't even start before throwing a rod. Originally Posted by philippeb8 Of course. Good, just checking. Originally Posted by philippeb8 Never heard of point masses and spherical coordinates? Sure have, and it don't help you. __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ Last edited by The Man; 24th December 2019 at 02:28 PM. Reason: typos and ETAs
 24th December 2019, 04:32 PM #1115 Steve Philosopher     Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,855 Hey philippeb8! When does Finite Theory get connected to the Rothschilds? You say they control the world so they must also control this subset of the world, right? Maybe they are the reason you are having so much trouble explaining your position. __________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
 24th December 2019, 04:40 PM #1116 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Finite Theory: Historical Milestone in Physics Originally Posted by Steve Hey philippeb8! When does Finite Theory get connected to the Rothschilds? You say they control the world so they must also control this subset of the world, right? Maybe they are the reason you are having so much trouble explaining your position. It is possible but the problem is political analysts who knows about them are rarely interested into astrophysics as well and vice-versa. So nobody made the association yet. It is also possible it has to do with the US military deliberately misleading public research for national security reasons which does make a lot of sense also. Or we are just plain ignorant.
 24th December 2019, 04:53 PM #1117 Steve Philosopher     Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,855 Originally Posted by philippeb8 It is possible but the problem is political analysts who knows about them are rarely interested into astrophysics as well and vice-versa. So nobody made the association yet. It is also possible it has to do with the US military deliberately misleading public research for national security reasons which does make a lot of sense also. Or we are just plain ignorant. Consider this to be your opportunity to make history. Sort of a grand unified theory of astrophysics and politics. Unless the US military holds influence over every astrophysicist and relativity theorist on the planet. __________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
 24th December 2019, 05:11 PM #1118 The Man Unbanned zombie poster     Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 14,473 Originally Posted by philippeb8 FT, calculus and algebra are deductive and represent the real world. "the real world" you say? You do understand that the surface of a sphere (or even an oblate spheroid) is a non-Euclidean space, don't you? Originally Posted by philippeb8 GR and its non-Euclidean geometry are not deductive and represent security through obscurity. That you might find such geometry obscuring, doesn't make it non-deductive or any less directly applicable to, quite literally, our "real world". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Eu...iptic_geometry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_transport Everything you do happens in an Non-Euclidean elliptic geometry space (the surface of essentially a sphere). Originally Posted by philippeb8 And predicting the light bending without knowing in advance the perihelion shift is impossible because FT, calculus and algebra said so. Impossible for your FT, sure, we got that, and once again your Ft numerology can't show anything about GR. Likewise, neither can your apparent disdain for the very geometry upon which we all live. Originally Posted by philippeb8 Yes because the radius in spherical coordinates and the distance from a point mass for the gravitational potential are the same thing. A radius ("in spherical coordinates" or not) being a, well, radius ("the distance from a point mass for the gravitational potential") still doesn't help you. kg/m still ain't Joule/kg, a "gravitational potential". __________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ
 24th December 2019, 09:28 PM #1120 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 661 Originally Posted by Steve Consider this to be your opportunity to make history. Sort of a grand unified theory of astrophysics and politics. Unless the US military holds influence over every astrophysicist and relativity theorist on the planet. Politics and religion are just intermediate layers. What really controls the world is money and technology so if the elites or the military want to invest into my company to make a return of investment or jumpstart their technology then they are welcome. I’m not here to overpower anybody and I have no desire to.

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us Google Reddit