The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

The velocity curves wouldn't converge with 1+(gT1/g).

They do converge with 1+SQRT(gT1/g) suppress the factor above 6.674E-11ms^2.

Mass X Time
 
Try to convert to (g,cm,s) units instead of (kg,m,s) units and it'll stop agreeing. That what unit mismatches do for you.
 
DeathDart said:
I am wanting to write a paper for Physical Review Letters D on the subject of Time Space. It would be better if I collaborated with someone who has written papers, and is able to communicate with, and translate for me.
Click to expand...

Well DD, to get a paper published in PRD (or any other reputable scientific journal), it will have to pass peer review. What you are receiving in this thread is a form of peer review - and thus far, you have failed miserably to respond to the questions and concerns we have raised.

So, my suggestion is that you attempt to understand and respond to the questions being asked here. Otherwise, you have no chance of ever getting your work published in a peer-reviewed journal like PRD.
 
DeathDart said:
The gT1= 1 second makes more sense now. This would explain why we would never see any effects locally.

My calculations were showing that there were some effects that should have been observable in local space. The calculation is wrong.

Time is not G/g until you are below g=G. g= local gravity

Space Time Relativity<G 6.674E-11ms^2>Time Space, Fixed frame time speeds up.

There are no observable effects locally.
Click to expand...

Neither is there any observable mathematics or a coherent argument in this thread by DD.
 
DeathDart said:
Collaborator Wanted

I am wanting to write a paper for Physical Review Letters D on the subject of Time Space. It would be better if I collaborated with someone who has written papers, and is able to communicate with, and translate for me.

So if any individuals, or institutions, would like to team up on writing a paper, please use the message board to contact me.

I will wait 2 days before looking elsewhere. 14:00 22 Sept 2011
Click to expand...

** crickets chirping **
 
DeathDart said:
But it seems that the only kind of math that you will accept, can only be done by someone who has doing it for twenty years.
Click to expand...

No, I'm perfectly willing to accept and analyze a mathematical analysis from someone who has only been doing it for a couple of years (such as a graduate student in physics). However, you haven't shown us anything close to that. Hell, you haven't even shown us any valid equations to this point, just a bunch of random numbers and blind assertions; what you're showing isn't even up to the standards of high school physics.
 
ben m said:
Try to convert to (g,cm,s) units instead of (kg,m,s) units and it'll stop agreeing. That what unit mismatches do for you.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a unit mismatch, wait you are amazingly correct.

Because I had to find the damn unit myself. Then I had to verify it, myself.

At a gravitational field of: gT1=6.674E-11 ms^2 Time Space is officially running at 1 second.

At a gravitational field of: gT2=3.337E-11 ms^2 Time Space is officially running at 2 seconds, compared to gT1.
 
Ziggurat said:
You came here with a theory which you haven't even fleshed out, but which (if true) would overturn an incredibly well tested theory central to modern physics. Your theory is based on nothing other than a hunch, and depend on numbers which are nothing but an unjustified coincidence. It was clear from the start that you didn't understand even rudimentary physics, so it was never credible that you were going to stumble upon a revolutionary theory by accident. Nonetheless, I played along, because hey, you might learn something. You were clueless, but you still seemed to be approaching the topic in good faith.

Your theory has now been disproven. This comes as no surprise to anyone. But this is where your good faith has evaporated. Instead of learning where you went wrong, or trying to discover why the Lyman alpha forest disproves your theory, you have responded with ad hominem attacks. Despite your monumental ignorance of the topic, it appears that you simply never even contemplated the possibility that you needed to learn something new. You have, in short, become the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. So I'm no longer interested in holding your hand as I walk you through where you went wrong. You aren't interested in learning, so the effort would be wasted. If I respond to smack down your nonsense in the future, it will not be for your benefit, but for any lurkers who, unlike you, might actually like to learn.
Click to expand...

Sums up the thread quite nicely.
 
DeathDart said:
An introductory physics text book covers the fine points of G.R.?

Your argument works to describe forces, and how to integrate masses so you can calculate the forces they might generate. It does not describe G.R.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...point-where-two-gravitational-fields-cancel-e
Click to expand...

So now you're galvanizing your conviction that you are right, instead of considering that you are wrong, and all that because of your ignorance ?

A classic case of Dunning-Kruger if there ever was one.
 
Complexity said:
There is no need to wait two days.

No one who isn't woo here would touch your proposal.
Click to expand...

What is Woo?

An almost a singular hive mind, like cloned copies.

I didn't wait.

I should start looking for another Truffle.

I am aware of mathematical coincidence. That is why String Theory is so lame. No singular solution set, the constants(?) change for every variation of the same problem. You can always change the numbers to fit the problem.

If the same solution set fits all examples of a problem, it tends to indicate that the math is at least descriptive, it may not address cause.

So has anyone ran the curves?
 
Belz... said:
So now you're galvanizing your conviction that you are right, instead of considering that you are wrong, and all that because of your ignorance ?

A classic case of Dunning-Kruger if there ever was one.
Click to expand...

I knew about the Dunning-Kruger effect a long time ago.

So does anyone still argue from observation?
 
How about the collision theory between two objects with vacuum densities creating a shockwave reflection? This is the current model for SNR brightening.

I believe that a shockwave reflection requires an abrupt density change for the shockwave to reflect from? I don't see how fast moving SNE material at low density, colliding with low density Nebular material, would generate a reflection. I would think the slow material would just get shoved along by the fast material.

Anyone want to comment on the SNR 1987A filaments?

The two HST pictures are Scrapbook picture 14 and picture 15.

14 http://www.spacetelescope.org/static...n/opo0409p.jpg

15 http://www.spacetelescope.org/static...n/opo0409q.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom