IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 29th March 2023, 06:19 PM   #1401
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Helland physics has given us an entirely new way to misunderstand the universe.
I'm ok with that.

If it's perfectly reasonable to adjust the space coefficients based on the time coordinate:



Then it should be acceptable to make the time coefficient based on the space coordinates.
Mike Helland 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 29th March 2023, 06:56 PM   #1402
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,830
Details matter.

Tom Knight was one of the lead designers of the MIT Lisp Machines. This story says a lot about the previous post.
A novice was trying to fix a broken Lisp machine by turning the power off and on.

Knight, seeing what the student was doing, spoke sternly: You cannot fix a machine by just power-cycling it with no understanding of what is going wrong.

Knight turned the machine off and on.

The machine worked.
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 Yesterday, 06:19 AM   #1403
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 6,910
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
You replied to me in three minutes. You're not stopping to think. No-one apart from you believes that the paradox is anything other than irresolvable. The only thing you have to measure time on is your clock at A, and the round trips of two pulses are different according to that clock. There is no way round that. I'm not starting this again. You can carry on thinking you've resolved it and everyone who knows what they're talking about, including the referee when you submit the embarassing "paper" that you will no doubt write, will tell you the same thing, and you still won't believe them, like you didn't believe the referee on your last "paper". It's a waste of everyone's time.
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Sure. And in my model, photon 2 arrives late and photon 1 takes off early.
Changing where you start to count does not fix the paradox. It's like adding an extra flywheel to your perpetual motion machine.
__________________
Id rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Mashuna 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 Yesterday, 08:57 AM   #1404
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 53,389
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
You said "you" thirteen times in seven sentences.
To paraphrase from here:
https://despair.com/products/dysfunction
The only consistent feature in all your failed theories is you. That's why I'm emphasizing you. The details of an individual failure are pretty secondary, far more significant is the consistent cause of those failures, and that's you. So you deserve attention, because that's the only possible source for a fix to any of this. Not tweaking your theory with yet another revision, but a fundamental change in how you approach everything. You need to start by learning, and not in this half-assed way you're currently doing it.

Quote:
I've always done calculus problems with a computer program and a lot of trial and error. I know that's severely limiting. (No pun intended.) But it usually gets the right enough answers.

I just don't understand why it won't fly.

Quote:
And based on your feedback over the last couple years, I have revisited calculus, to try to express it in the calculus way, but obviously not well enough. I went over linear algebra too, and a couple other things.
Indeed, it's not enough. Not close to enough. There's a reason people spend year and years just learning this stuff, before they even try to do something new.

Quote:
You were also the one that said photons can't lose frequency without clocks desynchronizing, which is why we're talking about dynamic time in the first place.
I did indeed say that, and it is indeed true. But you seem to think that desynchronizing clocks is some trivial thing. It's not. It is no small feat to develop a new theory of desynchronization in a manner that is self-consistent, let alone in a manner that is consistent with observations. The parts need to connect to make a self-consistent whole, and you're not doing that. It is beyond you. Hell, it's beyond me too. The difference is that I know I'm not up to the task, despite knowing far more math and physics than you. For some reason, and despite all evidence to the contrary, you think you are. You are not.

Quote:
Regarding the first, one example was the flight time paradox, I think that's resolved:
No, it isn't resolved. You've got hand waving nonsense about dynamic time that doesn't actually make any sense. You have no coherent picture of what your dynamic time actually is, or what it actually does.

Quote:
As far as expressing it in the framework of relativity, I don't think I'm that far off in thinking that could be in the form of a metric tensor that reduces to the Minkowski metric at less than cosmological scales. And that it makes a "v" look like a "u".
You seem to think that means something. It doesn't.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   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 Yesterday, 09:07 AM   #1405
hecd2
Graduate Poster
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,482
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I'm ok with that.

If it's perfectly reasonable to adjust the space coefficients based on the time coordinate:

https://math-demo.abitti.fi/math.svg...d%7Bpmatrix%7D

Then it should be acceptable to make the time coefficient based on the space coordinates.
The Robertson-Walker metric is for an isotropic homogeneous Universe. In such a Universe, time passes at the same rate at all locations. You can write a 3 dimensional spatial metric for a given time which describes the intrinsic curvature and other properties, such as distances between points and angles between lines which are invariant under coordinate transformations.

If the rate of time is a function of location then the Universe is no longer homogeneous. But the Universe appears to us to be the same in all directions. The only way that can be is if the non-homogeneous Universe is spherically symmetric with us at its centre. That would make you a geocentrist. Is that what you arguing for?
__________________
Gulielmus Princeps Haroldum Principem in catino canino impulit
hecd2 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 Yesterday, 09:54 AM   #1406
Mike Helland
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 3,318
Originally Posted by Mashuna View Post
Changing where you start to count does not fix the paradox.
That's not quite what I'm suggesting.

Time dilation makes durations longer. Whether that duration extends to the future, or the past, shouldn't make a difference.
Mike Helland 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

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 08:52 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, 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.