
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 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661

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:
The Earth’s comoving framework attenuates because it intersects with the Sun’s comoving framework at high altitudes, or about the altitude of geostationary satellites as noted in previous posts. 
22nd December 2019, 10:19 AM  #1082 
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,473

So now you are claiming the local speed of light changes?
Again "The Earth’s comoving framework attenuates" what? and how? Or do you simply mean "The Earth’s comoving framework" is 'attenuated' as "it intersects with the Sun’s comoving 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 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661

No and it’s impossible without knowing the correct perihelion shift before or viceversa.
Quote:
The is used to get the exact same predictions as GR, where GR considers both light bending and length contraction. But FT says basically 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 
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,473

But GR can make that prediction. Got any experimental indication said prediction if incorrect?
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 selfinconsistencies I cautioned about before. 
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ 

22nd December 2019, 10:45 AM  #1085 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661

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 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661

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:
Quote:
Quote:
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 
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,473

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 noninertial as others have tried to explain to you. 
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ 

22nd December 2019, 01:33 PM  #1088 
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,473

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?
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" Well you have the same "perihelion shift before" you claim Einstein had. so make the prediction. 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. 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 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661

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 
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,473


__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ 

22nd December 2019, 02:24 PM  #1091 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661

?
Quote:
I'm saying FT can get a better prediction of the light bending using a better measurement of the perihelion shift (or viceversa).
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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 
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,473

Great, so it was not a hoax then.
"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. 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. Doesn't even seem to emulate GR even just for the calculation of the bending of light. Let alone anything else. 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, 10^{26}* 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 c^{2}/2G works out to Newton Second^{2} Meter^{2} 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 

22nd December 2019, 03:44 PM  #1093 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452


22nd December 2019, 03:52 PM  #1094 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452

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:
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:
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 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661

Perihelion Shift & Light Bending
So this is the perihelion shift:
Where: is the semimajor axis of the orbit; is it's eccentricity. And this is the light bending: So to predict one then you solve in the other with its observation and viceversa. 
22nd December 2019, 04:14 PM  #1096 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452

Of what?
Quote:
And h_{solar} is? How about c? G? Where is the derivation, from first FT principles?
Quote:
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:
I say GIGO .... 
22nd December 2019, 09:53 PM  #1097 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661


23rd December 2019, 03:45 AM  #1098 
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 

23rd December 2019, 05:30 AM  #1099 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661


23rd December 2019, 05:37 AM  #1100 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661


23rd December 2019, 08:38 AM  #1101 
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 
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,473

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 noninertial 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 spacetime 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 nonEuclidean portion ends up being the same as the Newtonian portion, hence the finial prediction being twice the previous. My mistake was misremembering the nonEuclidean 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 nonEuclidean geometry to GR making accurate calculations. In this case you have to plot the Newtonian divergence onto the curved spacetime 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 Meter^{4} Newton^{1} Second^{4} or is the speed of light to the 4th power divided by the Planck force (c^{4} F_{P}^{1}). So just the gravitational constant itself gives a hint at the spacetime four dimensional nature of gravity. 
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ 

23rd December 2019, 02:46 PM  #1103 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452


23rd December 2019, 04:09 PM  #1104 
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,473

Well, the 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/m^{3} 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 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661

I just proved it’s impossible to get the right light bending without knowing in advance the perihelion shift.
Quote:
The gravitational potential due to a solid sphere is exactly the same thing: https://sciphy.in/gravitationalpote...solidsphere/ 
24th December 2019, 06:20 AM  #1106 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452

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, 06:53 AM  #1107 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452

This, and the post immediately after it, point to a glaring hole in the presentation of FT (at least so far, in this thread).
It has been mentioned, in one way or another, directly or indirectly, by many ISF members. From one perspective, FT pretends the electroweak and strong forces do not exist. Hence all stars in FT are composed of dark matter (i.e forms of mass which do not interact other than via gravitation). Of course, this leads to many internal contradictions and inconsistencies. As is evident from early in the thread, e.g. the many unanswered questions about the “thought experiment” star and its plasma (“fire”). A more recent example is the laser lunar ranging stuff: the Moon, and the Earth, are assumed to be spherical. And to have a sharp surface. And no atmosphere. The OP made no attempt whatsoever to even consider the real Moon or the real Earth (unlike the scientists who actually worked on such experiments). A very recent example: “light bending”. Applied to the Moon, spherical and no atmosphere are good assumptions, so little ambiguity re its radius. Not too much of a problem for the Earth either. But what about Venus? Or Arrokoth? Mass too small to consider, right? But what about Uranus? Neptune? Saturn? Jupiter? The Sun?!? The first two likely have a solid surface (perhaps Saturn and Jupiter too). But I guess any calculations involving those planets will use a radius unrelated to any solid surfaces. So what defines the radius of an object like Jupiter or the Sun? Or a red giant like Betelgeuse? How about a cloud of gas and dust that has yet to collapse? A globular cluster? Of course, in any halfway decent idea in physics, you would be able to go to first principles (assumptions, postulates, axioms) and get an idea of how to proceed. Not so for FT! 
24th December 2019, 06:57 AM  #1108 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452


24th December 2019, 10:54 AM  #1109 
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,473

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 Schwarzschildlike 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. 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 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661

Finite Theory: Historical Milestone in Physics
... 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:
Quote:
Never heard of point masses and spherical coordinates? 
24th December 2019, 01:19 PM  #1111 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452

(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 socalled results presented in this thread, we cannot know what we are being fooled by. 
24th December 2019, 01:24 PM  #1112 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,452

So you say.
Without any evidence whatsoever.
Quote:
Without such, FT is as I have said all along, a joke. 
24th December 2019, 01:51 PM  #1113 
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,473

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. 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. Good, just checking. Sure have, and it don't help you. 
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ 

24th December 2019, 04:15 PM  #1114 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661

Finite Theory: Historical Milestone in Physics
FT, calculus and algebra are deductive and represent the real world.
GR and its nonEuclidean geometry are not deductive and represent security through obscurity. And predicting the light bending without knowing in advance the perihelion shift is impossible because FT, calculus and algebra said so.
Quote:
Yes because the radius in spherical coordinates and the distance from a point mass for the gravitational potential are the same thing. 
24th December 2019, 04:32 PM  #1115 
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 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661

Finite Theory: Historical Milestone in Physics
It is possible but the problem is political analysts who knows about them are rarely interested into astrophysics as well and viceversa. 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 
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,855


__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon  Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!" 

24th December 2019, 05:11 PM  #1118 
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,473

"the real world" you say? You do understand that the surface of a sphere (or even an oblate spheroid) is a nonEuclidean space, don't you?
That you might find such geometry obscuring, doesn't make it nondeductive or any less directly applicable to, quite literally, our "real world". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NonEu...iptic_geometry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_transport Everything you do happens in an NonEuclidean elliptic geometry space (the surface of essentially a sphere). 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. 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, 09:16 PM  #1119 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661

My choice of spherical coordinates was arbitrary but a radius or distance can be exchanged easily.
Quote:
Relativity is by a fact an inductive theory: http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuham...ductInduct.htm Einstein extended his SR into GR which doesn’t work at greater scales than the solar system. So instead of admitting GR was a blunder, people invented dark matter and dark energy...
Quote:
At least FT, calculus and algebra can explain:  The perihelion shift;  The light bending;  The time dilation cancelation altitude;  The rotation curve without dark matter;  The expansion of the universe without dark energy;  The mass of the invisible universe encompassing the visible one. GR:  The perihelion shift;  The light bending;  The time dilation cancelation altitude. And allows:  Singularities;  Whiteholes;  Wormholes;  Time travel into the past (> paradoxes);  Length contraction;  Mass increase (silently dismissed because it makes no sense in both SR and GR);
Quote:
When you divide a unit (observer) by the same unit (observed object) then you get a factor with no unit. 
24th December 2019, 09:28 PM  #1120 
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 661

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. 
Bookmarks 
Thread Tools  

