[theunify]

For the toe Record Tony; please state whether or not you agree with the statement that your theory is not needed at this time, a revision would be redundent.

Originally Posted by Tony Stanton

Quanta07

Hi Tony,


Hi quanta07, yes, all objects including you and me.




No, vectors are of use only in four dimensional spacetime. If you wish to know how long it takes for the field of an object to reach a certain point in space then equation (13) will give you that value. Time and space are exactly the same entity so you can interchange them as shown in equations (14) and (15). Vectors are not necessary in this concept but they are useful if you view spacetime as a four dimensional metric.




Well it is a start that we may agree on something.




The term displacement is in the SI units of the metre but you are right I should have stated that fact but in the paper I refer to the metre in

“The distance that light travels in one second is d = 2998792458 m so due to this fact, TR contends that the largest radius of the spacetime field that can be generated by any mass-less particle in a period of one second is r = 299792458 m”

So I mistakenly assumed anyone reading it would know I am referring to the metre as a unit of measurement. In fact this concept would work if you used the zog as a measurement of distance and the gag as a measurement of time providing you know how many zogs light travels in a gag. In this case I am referring to the metre so I will make that point when the paper is updated.




Yes, this is what I am setting out to prove and it is the reason why I have included three simple experiments that will prove TR has merit and the spacetime field exists.



There is nothing invalid, all measurements in this theory are based on SI terms but in three dimensional spacetime the measurement of the second is just a multiple of volume ‘Phi’.





This unit of the metre will be included in the next updated version, thanks again.



That is just supposition and as physics has no idea what causes mass, other than the elusive Higgs boson, I tend to disregard non-facts when formulating TR.





In for dimensional spacetime yes, but vectors are not needed to find out what the field is doing in three dimensional spacetime. All that is required is a little geometry.

Thanks for looking at my paper you have been most helpful.

Tony
____________________________
This is the theory of True Relativity.

[Tony Stanton]

theunify

For the toe Record Tony; please state whether or not you agree with the statement that your theory is not needed at this time, a revision would be redundent.

I absolutely do not agree with that statement because TR is the first theory of spacetime that allows spacetime to be manipulated. If the spacetime field does exist then being able to manipulate it will give unlimited power without any pollution. It also means it may be possible to develop an anti-gravity device for travelling vast distances at faster than light speeds.
If TR is correct then there is no increase in mass when travelling at velocity. The increase in energy is the result of potential acceleration within the objects spacetime field thereby removing the obstacle of ever increasing mass allowing faster than light travel to become a real possibility.
The very simple experiment explained in my paper using a piece of superconducting material would demonstrate that this may well be possible if the spacetime field does exist.

This theory is completely testable and I am confident that if some physicist, institution or company with the correct facilities undertakes such simple experiments they will confirm that a spacetime field may well be present around each object.

Tony

____________________________
This is the theory of True Relativity.

[theunify]

Tony S. I think it is us who do not understand what is so true about Relativity?
Please explain how you should own the rights to being the final word on Relativity?

[quanta07]

Originally Posted by Tony Stanton

Quanta07

Hi Tony,


Hi quanta07, yes, all objects including you and me.




No, vectors are of use only in four dimensional spacetime. If you wish to know how long it takes for the field of an object to reach a certain point in space then equation (13) will give you that value. Time and space are exactly the same entity so you can interchange them as shown in equations (14) and (15). Vectors are not necessary in this concept but they are useful if you view spacetime as a four dimensional metric.




Well it is a start that we may agree on something.




The term displacement is in the SI units of the metre but you are right I should have stated that fact but in the paper I refer to the metre in

“The distance that light travels in one second is d = 2998792458 m so due to this fact, TR contends that the largest radius of the spacetime field that can be generated by any mass-less particle in a period of one second is r = 299792458 m”

So I mistakenly assumed anyone reading it would know I am referring to the metre as a unit of measurement. In fact this concept would work if you used the zog as a measurement of distance and the gag as a measurement of time providing you know how many zogs light travels in a gag. In this case I am referring to the metre so I will make that point when the paper is updated.




Yes, this is what I am setting out to prove and it is the reason why I have included three simple experiments that will prove TR has merit and the spacetime field exists.



There is nothing invalid, all measurements in this theory are based on SI terms but in three dimensional spacetime the measurement of the second is just a multiple of volume ‘Phi’.





This unit of the metre will be included in the next updated version, thanks again.



That is just supposition and as physics has no idea what causes mass, other than the elusive Higgs boson, I tend to disregard non-facts when formulating TR.





In for dimensional spacetime yes, but vectors are not needed to find out what the field is doing in three dimensional spacetime. All that is required is a little geometry.

Thanks for looking at my paper you have been most helpful.

Tony
____________________________
This is the theory of True Relativity.

Tony,
There seems to be a misunderstanding in mathematical modeling and an ongoing problem in logic here....
Mathematically, in equation one, you compare apples to oranges by defining 's' in the terms you state.
This renders the function invalid as a premis.....
There are laws of logic that you tend to ignore, consistently. Logically, if the premis is true then conclusion may be valid.......
You, as before in other postings here on toequest, merely state the premis without validity,
"a spacetime field exists about mass". With no validity of premis, you then draw conclusions.
This is wrong, it is a fallacy of logic. Any and all conclusions made with invalid premis, by all laws of logic are FALSE.
It is obvious that ego denies the possibility of error.
"That is just supposition and as physics has no idea what causes mass, other than the elusive Higgs boson,"
Again....the formation of mass is caused by the quantum effect...
'gravity'(an acceleration field) is the byproduct of this effect

"I tend to disregard non-facts when formulating TR."
Then SHOW YOUR PREMIS TO BE TRUE
You have to abide by the properties of field, in that they are composed of vectors whose properties define field behavior.
You claim 's' to be 'displacement' due to the presence of mass.
You must show that (delta Volume)/f(g(m)) exists BEFORE drawing conclusions.
where the function f(g(m)) IS the vector FIELD you claim exists due to the presence of mass.
I have taken my time to read your paper. I have told you where to find the math that will help your endeavor.
Just stating 's' is meters, DOES NOT MAKE IT SO
"but vectors are not needed to find out what the field is doing in three dimensional spacetime.
All that is required is a little geometry."
ALL FIELDS are composed of vectors by definition
As presented, your theory AND conclusions are invalid/false/wrong............BECAUSE YOUR PREMIS as presented IS INVALID.
If you choose to minimize what I have stated here, then I offer no more help in finding what you need to prove this theory....Q7

[theunify]

I think he is right, any theory that needs constant revisions is not a serious canidate for a TOE.

IMO-theunify

[Tony Stanton]

theunify

Tony S. I think it is us who do not understand what is so true about Relativity?
Please explain how you should own the rights to being the final word on Relativity?

It is called Relativity because in this concept every object become truly relative to every other object in this Universe. I do not own the rights to being the final word on Relativity. That is a silly statement and not worthy of someone who is interested in physics. The concept is sound mathematically and is also testable, even though it is very radical.

Tony

____________________________
This is the theory of True Relativity.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by theunify

I think he is right, any theory that needs constant revisions is not a serious canidate for a TOE.

IMO-theunify

TheUnify, state your scientific reasoning or stop commenting. This is a scientific thread, not an open opinion thread. Continue to state unfounded opinion, and you will be deleted..

I'd like to see where the respondence goes, please...?

Lloyd

[Tony Stanton]

Quanta07

Tony,
There seems to be a misunderstanding in mathematical modeling and an ongoing problem in logic here....
Mathematically, in equation one, you compare apples to oranges by defining 's' in the terms you state.

No I do not compare apples to oranges. Lets examine it shall we.

Vd = (4/3*pi*(R+s)^3) - (4/3*pi*R^3)

Vd = a volume measured in m^3

R = Radius of a sphere in metres (m)

s = the displacement caused to an object by the gravitational field of a large mass such as a moon or planet over a period of one second and is also measured in metres (m).
Unless you have been on a different planet, the displacement is measured in metres according to known physics.
All I have done with equation (1) is compare the volume of two spheres which gives me a volume of distortion in m^3
It is only simple geometry so where are you coming from?

This renders the function invalid as a premis.....
There are laws of logic that you tend to ignore, consistently. Logically, if the premis is true then conclusion may be valid.......

No, it does not render anything invalid. It seems to me you can’t understand simple geometry so let me ask you; what is the equation for the volume of a sphere?

You, as before in other postings here on toequest, merely state the premis without validity,
"a spacetime field exists about mass". With no validity of premis, you then draw conclusions.

This is not about stating a premiss without validity, this is a theory of three dimensional spacetime and it is testable.

This is wrong, it is a fallacy of logic. Any and all conclusions made with invalid premis, by all laws of logic are FALSE.

The logic is not false nor is the math of TR.

It is obvious that ego denies the possibility of error.

I have made many errors in developing TR but the math is sound and the conclusion that mass is purely a spacetime distortion is based on what the math tells me. You may not agree with the theory but the math can model the gravity of any mass just as accurately as Newtonian physics with the exception that the gravity field can be no larger than about 1500 AU if the Universe is around 13.75 billion years old because gravity is time dependant in the concept of TR.

"That is just supposition and as physics has no idea what causes mass, other than the elusive Higgs boson,"
Again....the formation of mass is caused by the quantum effect...
'gravity'(an acceleration field) is the byproduct of this effect

By the quantum effect? Don’t make me laugh. Quantum physics cannot be coupled to the macro world and in this respect it has failed miserably. The use of probability may have led to some benefits but it is not the way this Universe works.

"I tend to disregard non-facts when formulating TR."
Then SHOW YOUR PREMIS TO BE TRUE

As soon as I get the three experiments done I will show you how true this premiss is. The gravity probe ‘B’ experiments are due in April and that will show that space is rotating around with the Earth and not being dragged by it.

You have to abide by the properties of field, in that they are composed of vectors whose properties define field behavior.

In four dimensional spacetime you are right but TR does not use or need vectors to explain mathematically what the spacetime field is doing. This is three dimensional spacetime where space and time are exactly the same entity so only simple geometry is needed.

You claim 's' to be 'displacement' due to the presence of mass.
You must show that (delta Volume)/f(g(m)) exists BEFORE drawing conclusions.
where the function f(g(m)) IS the vector FIELD you claim exists due to the presence of mass.

Lets give a little example and see if you can follow the very simple math. On the surface of the Earth the rate of acceleration is about 9.81 m s^-2 so to find the displacement you divide it by seconds so s = 9.81/2 = 4.905 m. I hope you can follow that.

I

have taken my time to read your paper. I have told you where to find the math that will help your endeavor.
Just stating 's' is meters, DOES NOT MAKE IT SO

Yes it does. I have not broken any rules of math as I have shown you above.

"but vectors are not needed to find out what the field is doing in three dimensional spacetime.
All that is required is a little geometry."
ALL FIELDS are composed of vectors by definition

Only in four dimensional spacetime.

As presented, your theory AND conclusions are invalid/false/wrong............BECAUSE YOUR PREMIS as presented IS INVALID.

No your ability to do simple geometry is, a little poor to say the least.

If you choose to minimize what I have stated here, then I offer no more help in finding what you need to prove this theory....Q7

I can do nothing about that and going by your understanding of simple geometry I am not sure you would be much help anyway.

Tony

____________________________
This is the theory of True Relativity.

[quanta07]

Originally Posted by Tony Stanton

Quanta07



No I do not compare apples to oranges. Lets examine it shall we.

Vd = (4/3*pi*(R+s)^3) - (4/3*pi*R^3)

Vd = a volume measured in m^3

R = Radius of a sphere in metres (m)

s = the displacement caused to an object by the gravitational field of a large mass such as a moon or planet over a period of one second and is also measured in metres (m).
Unless you have been on a different planet, the displacement is measured in metres according to known physics.
All I have done with equation (1) is compare the volume of two spheres which gives me a volume of distortion in m^3
It is only simple geometry so where are you coming from?




No, it does not render anything invalid. It seems to me you can’t understand simple geometry so let me ask you; what is the equation for the volume of a sphere?



This is not about stating a premiss without validity, this is a theory of three dimensional spacetime and it is testable.



The logic is not false nor is the math of TR.




I have made many errors in developing TR but the math is sound and the conclusion that mass is purely a spacetime distortion is based on what the math tells me. You may not agree with the theory but the math can model the gravity of any mass just as accurately as Newtonian physics with the exception that the gravity field can be no larger than about 1500 AU if the Universe is around 13.75 billion years old because gravity is time dependant in the concept of TR.




By the quantum effect? Don’t make me laugh. Quantum physics cannot be coupled to the macro world and in this respect it has failed miserably. The use of probability may have led to some benefits but it is not the way this Universe works.




As soon as I get the three experiments done I will show you how true this premiss is. The gravity probe ‘B’ experiments are due in April and that will show that space is rotating around with the Earth and not being dragged by it.



In four dimensional spacetime you are right but TR does not use or need vectors to explain mathematically what the spacetime field is doing. This is three dimensional spacetime where space and time are exactly the same entity so only simple geometry is needed.



Lets give a little example and see if you can follow the very simple math. On the surface of the Earth the rate of acceleration is about 9.81 m s^-2 so to find the displacement you divide it by seconds so s = 9.81/2 = 4.905 m. I hope you can follow that.

I

Yes it does. I have not broken any rules of math as I have shown you above.



Only in four dimensional spacetime.



No your ability to do simple geometry is, a little poor to say the least.


I can do nothing about that and going by your understanding of simple geometry I am not sure you would be much help anyway.

Tony

____________________________
This is the theory of True Relativity.

Babel all you want,
your math does not work.
your logic presentation is invalid.
You will recieve nothing more from me....Q7

[Tony Stanton]

Quanta07

Babel all you want,
your math does not work.
your logic presentation is invalid.
You will recieve nothing more from me....Q7

How can it be babbling, the theory is based on the constancy of light in a vacuum and only uses simple geometry.
Now you have made a statement “your math does not work” so I expect you to back up this statement and show why the math does not work.
I am able to calculate the gravity field of any object with mass without using Newtonian physics. I can also calculate time dilation between any two frames inside or outside a gravitational field and I am willing to give examples. You have made a silly statement and I expect you to show me where the math does not work so don’t throw your toys out the pram and hide away somewhere, stand up and back up your statement.

Tony

____________________________
This is the theory of True Relativity.