# Thread: Turns, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Spooky Action at a Distance

1. Originally Posted by 01101001
ZO1) How is this topic intended to be completely different from ATM topics Explanation of Synchronous Geometry and Trigonometry is effective?

ZO2) Why do you call this an "identity"? What is the mathematical definition of "identity"? What makes your funtion an identity?

ZO3) May your function be rewritten as:

ZO4) Is this ASCII equivalence a particular equivalent instance of yours, with lambda=x and constant upsilon=pi/4:
alpha=arctan(1/(cos(pi/4)*tan(arcsin(sin(x/2)/sin(pi/4)))))
Originally Posted by steveupson
My questions, or everyone's? If just mine, I ask these easier ones:

ZO1a) If you do not know how you intend to make this topic different from your earlier ATM topics, what new hypothesis will you present? Or do you have no new hypothesis?

ZO2a) Do you agree that this is an example of an identity: according to Wikipedia: Identity (mathematics):

In mathematics an identity is an equality relation A = B, such that A and B contain some variables and A and B produce the same value as each other regardless of what values (usually numbers) are substituted for the variables. In other words, A = B is an identity if A and B define the same functions.
ZO3a) Do you agree that this is an example of an identity: , if you are given the identity ?

ZO4a) Do you agree that another way to write tan-1(x) is arctan(x), and sin-1(x) is arcsin(x)?

2. Banned
Join Date
May 2016
Posts
238
Originally Posted by 01101001
My questions, or everyone's? If just mine, I ask these easier ones:

ZO1a) If you do not know how you intend to make this topic different from your earlier ATM topics, what new hypothesis will you present? Or do you have no new hypothesis?

ZO2a) Do you agree that this is an example of an identity: according to Wikipedia: Identity (mathematics):

ZO3a) Do you agree that this is an example of an identity: , if you are given the identity ?

ZO4a) Do you agree that another way to write tan-1(x) is arctan(x), and sin-1(x) is arcsin(x)?

Could you please slow down a little? I already told you that I didn't know the answers to your last questions. Why don't you try explaining those questions first, before we go any further down this road? What is the significance of these questions to the claims that I am making? Maybe I can give you a satisfactory answer if you give me a hint of what you're getting at, or why you think my theory won't work.

Why are your first 4 questions significant to your understanding of this particular ATM theory?

Originally Posted by 01101001
ZO1) How is this topic intended to be completely different from ATM topics Explanation of Synchronous Geometry and Trigonometry is effective?

ZO2) Why do you call this an "identity"? What is the mathematical definition of "identity"? What makes your funtion an identity?

ZO3) May your function be rewritten as:

ZO4) Is this ASCII equivalence a particular equivalent instance of yours, with lambda=x and constant upsilon=pi/4:
alpha=arctan(1/(cos(pi/4)*tan(arcsin(sin(x/2)/sin(pi/4)))))

3. Banned
Join Date
May 2016
Posts
238
Originally Posted by Shaula
And this leads to your claims about frame dragging, dark energy and dark matter via the quantitative predictions and detailed model you are about to present here?
The model was described in the OP. The OP specifies the treatment of length as a vector quantity and the treatment of direction as a scalar quantity in a synchronous geometry reference frame.

4. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
6,683
Originally Posted by steveupson
The model was described in the OP. The OP specifies the treatment of length as a vector quantity and the treatment of direction as a scalar quantity in a synchronous geometry reference frame.
Please provide the proofs I have asked for or retract your claims and select something more achievable to defend.

5. Banned
Join Date
May 2016
Posts
238
Originally Posted by Shaula
Please provide the proofs I have asked for or retract your claims and select something more achievable to defend.
My claim is mathematical. It's either correct or it's incorrect.

6. Originally Posted by steveupson
Why are your first 4 questions significant to your understanding of this particular ATM theory?

Originally Posted by steveupson
My claim is mathematical. It's either correct or it's incorrect.
Is it correct or incorrect?

7. Banned
Join Date
May 2016
Posts
238
Originally Posted by 01101001

Is it correct or incorrect?
I believe the math is correct. It's sort of obvious that there are no errors, at least none that you can find.

The validity of the mathematics has nothing at all to do with whether or not I know the answers to your questions. Ad hominem arguments aren't considered valid in science.

8. ZO5) Do the graphs you provided accurately show the value of at values of , compared to for reference?

ZO6) What are the minimum and maximum values of and of depicted in those graphs?

9. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
6,683
Originally Posted by steveupson
My claim is mathematical. It's either correct or it's incorrect.
We seem to have a communication issue here. I thought I was being rather clear. You have an idea that you believe has physical significance. You have made a number of claims for its predictive power relating to frame dragging, dark energy and dark matter. I am asking you to show, in detail, that these claims are justified by showing how your ideas can be used to replicate observations normally taken as evidence for the current theories. If you cannot do this then your claims are false and you should retract them.

So far you have shown no good reason for anyone to bother delving into your ideas. You have presented a series of pieces of mathematics which have not been shown to have any relevance to the physical world. You have made a series of claims you have provided no evidence for. You have repeatedly resorted to "If you REALLY understand my ideas then you will understand why they are right" which is not a scientific stance so much as a belief. You have repeatedly evaded all attempts to ask for more than your assertions as proof. As things stand the quality of scientific method applied in this thread has been below that I'd expect of a high school project. I am asking you, and have been for awhile now, to rectify that and provide us with something scientific we can analyse and test against observations. This is basic scientific methodology. If you cannot do this then your idea is worthless in scientific terms.

So, please, answer my questions. Or retract your claims and present something you can justify and defend.

10. Banned
Join Date
May 2016
Posts
238
Originally Posted by 01101001
ZO5) Do the graphs you provided accurately show the value of at values of , compared to for reference?

ZO6) What are the minimum and maximum values of and of depicted in those graphs?
Yes, the graphs show these curves accurately (Excel).

11. Banned
Join Date
May 2016
Posts
238
Originally Posted by Shaula
We seem to have a communication issue here. I thought I was being rather clear. You have an idea that you believe has physical significance. You have made a number of claims for its predictive power relating to frame dragging, dark energy and dark matter. I am asking you to show, in detail, that these claims are justified by showing how your ideas can be used to replicate observations normally taken as evidence for the current theories. If you cannot do this then your claims are false and you should retract them.

So far you have shown no good reason for anyone to bother delving into your ideas. You have presented a series of pieces of mathematics which have not been shown to have any relevance to the physical world. You have made a series of claims you have provided no evidence for. You have repeatedly resorted to "If you REALLY understand my ideas then you will understand why they are right" which is not a scientific stance so much as a belief. You have repeatedly evaded all attempts to ask for more than your assertions as proof. As things stand the quality of scientific method applied in this thread has been below that I'd expect of a high school project. I am asking you, and have been for awhile now, to rectify that and provide us with something scientific we can analyse and test against observations. This is basic scientific methodology. If you cannot do this then your idea is worthless in scientific terms.

So, please, answer my questions. Or retract your claims and present something you can justify and defend.
There is no communication problem. You have made your position very clear. And I have answered your questions. If you'd like to ask anything specific about the math that you don't want to waste precious time on, feel free.

12. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
6,683
Originally Posted by steveupson
That is completely and demonstrably false. In case you needed a reminder the questions I asked were:
1) Derive the Schiff precession rate for the Gravity Probe B set-up and show that it is consistent with the published measurements (http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html)
2) Predict the precession rate you'd expect to see around the SMBH at the galactic core
3) Derive the expected rotation curves for our galaxy and show that it is consistent with measurements
4) Use the same model as above to account for Dragonfly 44
5) Derive the distance luminosity relationship for type Ia supernovae and show that this is consistent with observations
6) Show how your ideas lead to the characteristic structure in the power spectrum of the CMB (the BAO)
7) Show how your ideas account for the observed elemental abundances in the universe and show that this is consistent with stellar nucleosynthesis.

I also gave you an alternative option:
Retract your claims and present something you can justify and defend

13. Banned
Join Date
May 2016
Posts
238
Originally Posted by Shaula
That is completely and demonstrably false. In case you needed a reminder the questions I asked were:
1) Derive the Schiff precession rate for the Gravity Probe B set-up and show that it is consistent with the published measurements (http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html)
2) Predict the precession rate you'd expect to see around the SMBH at the galactic core
3) Derive the expected rotation curves for our galaxy and show that it is consistent with measurements
4) Use the same model as above to account for Dragonfly 44
5) Derive the distance luminosity relationship for type Ia supernovae and show that this is consistent with observations
6) Show how your ideas lead to the characteristic structure in the power spectrum of the CMB (the BAO)
7) Show how your ideas account for the observed elemental abundances in the universe and show that this is consistent with stellar nucleosynthesis.

I also gave you an alternative option:
Retract your claims and present something you can justify and defend
I don't see a question there.

14. This thread is a rehash of previous, closed ATM threads. On top of that, evading questions is not acceptable. This thread is closed and the ATM topic may not be posted again.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•