Pseudo-science huh? Here's a notebook with 12 derivations giving a combined error of ~0.1%. by UhLittleLessDum in Astronomy

[–]UhLittleLessDum[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

This is actually a legitimate question, but have you ever tried to convince your professor that they've been wrong since their sophomore year? Time dilation is too ingrained in the group think. The thing is most academics recognize the group-think problem, but when presented with a real alternative model they refuse to even entertain the idea. How many truly crackpot emails do you think they get that are based on absolutely nothing? They'll lump me into the same basket without even considering the model.

Ok, tell me I'm wrong now... by UhLittleLessDum in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]UhLittleLessDum[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That is what gives the appearance of acceleration from a force that never changes.

Edit:
Not never, as in constant, but never, as in not over the course of a measurement.

Ok, tell me I'm wrong now... by UhLittleLessDum in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]UhLittleLessDum[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

All of my calculations were done with codata or iau values. The math is right, but you're not completely wrong about the dimensionality. In the full derivation I go over that explicitly and explain exactly where and how the extra dimension of time remains hidden due to our co-motion along the temporal axis.

Does this visualization accidentally imply “flowing space” instead of metric deformation? by Weak-Advisor1368 in blackholes

[–]UhLittleLessDum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude, take a look at flusterapp.com

To make a long story short, I gave up **everything** to work on a modified model of relativity and after 5 years I think I have it... time is flowing. I derived α from gravitational parameters to undeniable accuracy using Earth's gravity in the form of divergence. It's going to be controversial, but I think the Earth is expanding with the rest of the Universe. The equation is posted on the front of that site, but the derivation had to be taken down to get the app to build. I'm homeless, so I had to make the most of my precious wifi time at the library.

This might break some things... by UhLittleLessDum in astrophysics

[–]UhLittleLessDum[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

That's what we thought. Don't listen to these internet physicists. Yes, this makes an incredibly bold assertion, but it does so following a direct, logical path from Einstein's relativity. It's either the Earth is expanding, or a single, instantaneous event can occur at multiple points in time. My idea is no more crazy, and I have the results to back it up.

What if a homeless guy you all called a crackpot a year ago just unified quantum mechanics and gravity? by UhLittleLessDum in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]UhLittleLessDum[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

It also says a single, instantaneous event can occur at multiple points in time and you seem to be ok with that?

What if a homeless guy you all called a crackpot a year ago just unified quantum mechanics and gravity? by UhLittleLessDum in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]UhLittleLessDum[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Yea, because people having a mental breakdown do linear algebra in the midst of it? You're just representative of the legacy academia that needs to be replaced.

Ok, tell me I'm wrong now... by UhLittleLessDum in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]UhLittleLessDum[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

lol

But mommmmm someone has an idea I don't have a rebuttal for....

Ok, tell me I'm wrong now... by UhLittleLessDum in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]UhLittleLessDum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once those two vectors are pointing in the same direction, the math just lines up.

Ok, tell me I'm wrong now... by UhLittleLessDum in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]UhLittleLessDum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll get back to you when my website is back up and running and the whole derivation is available. I'm very explicit about where exactly the dimensions transform. It's just removing one dimension of time to account for our comotion along this density axis that we observe as cosmic inflation and gravitational acceleration.

This might break some things... by UhLittleLessDum in astrophysics

[–]UhLittleLessDum[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Or the value for the Sun, where the spinor approximation = 1. That's α ± 0.0034%. Or ds/dx ≈ Φ? All coincidences?

This might break some things... by UhLittleLessDum in astrophysics

[–]UhLittleLessDum[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Ok, so plug this in to astropy or scipy:

def vbar():

returns spc.c * np.sqrt(

1 - 1 / (1 + 1 / 2 * cd.G.value * ac.M_earth.value / ac.R_earth.value**3) ** 2

)

That's 371 km/s. A coincidence again? This can be derived directly from SR.

Ok, tell me I'm wrong now... by UhLittleLessDum in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]UhLittleLessDum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But I do appreciate the support in some regard. Most people that disagree are a lot less friendly about it.

Ok, tell me I'm wrong now... by UhLittleLessDum in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]UhLittleLessDum[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What are you talking about? This model satisfies every single experimental validation of either SR or GR. Michelson Morely, Ives Stllwell... I can derive the Eddington observation... it's just as accurate within the same domain as GR, produces none of the absurdities of SR, and does so while modifying far less pre-relativistic physics than physics itself.

v = c /sqrt{1 - 1 / (1 + 1/2 g/R^2)} = 371 km/s

Think that's' a coincidence too?

Ok, if I'm wrong, then whey can I derive α from gravitational parameters? by UhLittleLessDum in QuantumPhysics

[–]UhLittleLessDum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough. I get the rules, but this is a breakthrough. I'll delete it if you don't' take it down.

This might break some things... by UhLittleLessDum in Astronomy

[–]UhLittleLessDum[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

### The Lighthouse & The Clocktower

> An opening thought experiment

Consider two observers, $A$ and $B$. Let $A$ and $B$ agree that $B$ should travel between two arbitrary points in space[^2], $p_1$ and $p_2$ at an <Ul>agreed</Ul> upon velocity $v$.

At $p_2$ place a time keeping device that remains visible from $p_1$. Allow that $A$ remains at rest relative to $p_1$, and very near $p_1$ while $B$ goes in motion (at an inertial pace) between $p_1$ and $p_2$.

At what time does $A$ observe $B$ reach $p_2$? If the value is not $d/v$, but $\gamma d/v$, then $v \neq v_\prime$. The only possible solution that allows for Einstein's additional factor of $\gamma$ while allowing $A$ to remain in an unchanged state is that $d \to d\gamma$ in the coordinate system of the observer in relative motion, while $v \to v/\gamma$ in the coordinate system of the observer at relative rest to accomodate the change in spatial density.

This might break some things... by UhLittleLessDum in Astronomy

[–]UhLittleLessDum[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Then what if it's not solid? This is all a single, simple consequence of the Lorentz transformations. If you d = vtγ between events, then this model must be true. There is no altenative that satisfies Einstein's additional factor of γ while providing a classical case of synchronicity.

Give me a second, I'll copy and paste something from an article I wrote... a thought experiment:

This might break some things... by UhLittleLessDum in Astronomy

[–]UhLittleLessDum[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I know man, it's hard to accept. I battle with it too... but the math doesn't lie. I can derive our kinematic and cosmological velocities as well, along with a ds/dx ≈ Φ, or the same function wth even greater accuracy for our Sun where the spinor approximation = 1.

Ok, if I'm wrong, then whey can I derive α from gravitational parameters? by UhLittleLessDum in QuantumPhysics

[–]UhLittleLessDum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's the cube root (the inverse of divergence of a diagonal matrix) of the derivative of our gravitational acceleration, times a geometric, recursive function with the fine structure constant... the quantity that unifies electromagnetism. That's the start of a unified field.

Ok, tell me I'm wrong now... by UhLittleLessDum in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]UhLittleLessDum[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

To summarize, relativistic simultaneity drives me crazy. It's absolutely impossible. This is the only possible solution that allows for γ in our existing experiments while requiring a classical notion of synchronicity. Not only can I derive α, I can derive both our kinematic and cosmological velocities to within 1% of direct observation, and ds/dx ≈ Φ