Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Finite Theory's 4 new postulates

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420

    Finite Theory's 4 new postulates

    Here are Finite Theory's 4 new postulates:

    Postulate 1: The local reference frame is defined to be the source of the strongest gravitational acceleration and following the associated spin of the emitting body.
    Postulate 2: The speed of light is constant, relative to the local reference frame.
    Postulate 3: The kinetic energy of body relative to its maxima induces dilation of time, relative to the local reference frame.
    Postulate 4: A gravitational time dilation is the direct cause of the superposed gravitational potentials.

    "Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics" claims: "This paper is based on utterly wrong and unsubstantiated postulates, which have nothing to do with the real world." but I am able the explain everything mathematically (although I won't talk mathematics in this thread) and I have an experiment proposal to prove it.

    Special thanks to CQ as "if" this is the correct theory then this thread is humankind's last hope because other groups simply reject ATM ideas for some reason.


    Thank you,
    philippeb8

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    533
    Ok Philippeb8, so you can now have your postulates discussed...

    the ATM viewers can be quite straightforward with any criticisms, so be prepared!

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Postulate 1: The local reference frame is defined to be the source of the strongest gravitational acceleration and following the associated spin of the emitting body.
    What exactly do you mean by "following the associated spin of the emitting body"?
    Last edited by john hunter; 2018-Feb-26 at 10:58 PM.
    "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,032
    Sorry Philippe, just my simple comments. Number one seems fine, because you’re just defining something so not making a postulate. Number two seems unnecessary, since the speed of light has consistently been found to be constant for any observer. And I don’t understand the last two.
    As above, so below

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    What exactly do you mean by "following the associated spin of the emitting body"?
    For example the Earth rotates and so is its associated local reference frame. The same will happen on the surface of the Moon.

    Think of the Earth or the Moon emitting gravitons, really.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Sorry Philippe, just my simple comments. Number one seems fine, because you’re just defining something so not making a postulate. Number two seems unnecessary, since the speed of light has consistently been found to be constant for any observer. And I don’t understand the last two.
    The 2nd hasn't been tested to its full extent and this is what the experiment proposal I suggest will prove.

    The 3rd applies to accelerated particles on the surface of the Earth. I predict slightly different kinetic time dilation to particles going at speeds > 0.5c.

    The 4th is already proven by GR as gravitational time dilation is directly proportional to the superimposed gravitational potentials.
    Last edited by philippeb8; 2018-Feb-27 at 12:03 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,032
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    The 2nd hasn't been tested to its full extent and this is what the experiment proposal I suggest will prove.
    I know this is not really a substantive critique, but you said you had four "postulates" but if it hasn't been tested, then it's a hypothesis. So you seem to be mixing definitions and hypotheses and postulates. I would think that this kind of messiness is just the kind of thing that would create red flags for reviewers, and seems why I think you would need an academic adviser to give you feedback and help you with the presentation.
    As above, so below

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I know this is not really a substantive critique, but you said you had four "postulates" but if it hasn't been tested, then it's a hypothesis. So you seem to be mixing definitions and hypotheses and postulates. I would think that this kind of messiness is just the kind of thing that would create red flags for reviewers, and seems why I think you would need an academic adviser to give you feedback and help you with the presentation.
    Ah...!

    So the 1st is a definition, the 2nd and the 3rd are hypotheses and the 4th is a postulate!

    Now it's too bad I can't resubmit a rejected manuscript to the same journal (why wouldn't they just ask for a simple correction anyway?). If that's the end of it then thank you very much for your input!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,920
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Here are Finite Theory's 4 new postulates: ...
    I would agree with "Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics". Postulates in physics need to have some foundation. Look at the postulates of special relativity.
    1.The laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (i.e., non-accelerating frames of reference).
    2.The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.
    1 is the expectation that the laws of physics are not different for different people moving at different, constant velocities. Someone on a train will measure F=ma. Someone at a station will measure F= ma, etc. Ditto for electromagnetism.
    2 allows light to be an electromagnetic waves even if an observer is traveling at the speed of light.

    Postulate 1 is wrong because it is a definition and vague.
    Postulate 2 is wrong as stated because the speed of light varies in materials.
    Postulate 3 looks wrong because it is more a deduction or assertion, not a postulate. Also: relative to a maxima of infinite kinetic energy?
    Postulate 4 is too vague.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,920
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    The 4th is already proven by GR as gravitational time dilation is directly proportional to the superimposed gravitational potentials.
    GR states that gravitational time dilation is related to the difference in a gravitational potential or gravitational potentials.
    When we measure gravitational time dilation here on Earth, there is only 1 gravitational potential and the gravitational time dilation is related to the difference in potentials between 2 points in that gravitational potential (Pound–Rebka experiment, GPS).

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    GR states that gravitational time dilation is related to the difference in a gravitational potential or gravitational potentials.
    When we measure gravitational time dilation here on Earth, there is only 1 gravitational potential and the gravitational time dilation is related to the difference in potentials between 2 points in that gravitational potential (Pound–Rebka experiment, GPS).
    Gotcha...!

    Thanks Reality Check, I will make the corrections.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    I think those are better suited:

    Definition 1: The local reference frame is defined to be the source of the strongest neighboring gravitational acceleration, both sharing the same spin.
    Hypothesis 1: The speed of light is constant in vacuum, relative to the local reference frame.
    Hypothesis 2: The ratio of the kinetic energy of a body and the bounded maximum kinetic energy of the same body is directly proportional to its kinetic time dilation, relative to the local reference frame.
    Postulate 1: A gravitational time dilation is directly proportional to the difference in the gravitational potentials of the observer and the observed object.
    Last edited by philippeb8; 2018-Feb-27 at 02:00 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,920
    Relabeling and a bit of clarification does not help much.
    Definition 1 is wrong because a local reference frame has a definition: A reference frame that is local to an observer.
    A reference frame is not a source of real forces like gravity. A rotating or accelerating frame can be a source of fictitious forces.
    The "both sharing the same spin" phrase sounds wrong. You seem to be saying that your theory can only be applied to observers and bodies with the same spin rate and axis, e.g. excludes a Foucault pendulum. Note that the Earth rotates and we can pick an associated local reference frame where it does not rotate. The freedom to select any reference frame is one of the foundations and complexities of general relativity.

    Hypothesis 1 is wrong for an accelerating frame. If you restrict it to an inertial frame then we have the speed of light postulate in SR.
    Hypothesis 2 has an "bounded maximum" assumption in it which is not good. You should be deriving that there is a specific bounded maximum for kinetic energy from the postulate(s).
    Postulate 1 is basically the definition of gravitational time dilation with the vagueness of "related" rather than a specific relation.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Feb-27 at 03:04 AM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I think those are better suited:

    Definition 1: The local reference frame is defined to be the source of the strongest neighboring gravitational acceleration, both sharing the same spin.
    Hypothesis 1: The speed of light is constant in vacuum, relative to the local reference frame.
    Hypothesis 2: The ratio of the kinetic energy of a body and the bounded maximum kinetic energy of the same body is directly proportional to its kinetic time dilation, relative to the local reference frame.
    Postulate 1: A gravitational time dilation is directly proportional to the difference in the gravitational potentials of the observer and the observed object.
    Silence = good news. I will ask the editor if I can resubmit the same paper with the aforementioned corrections.

    If it all works then I will payback CQ's help.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Relabeling and a bit of clarification does not help much.
    Definition 1 is wrong because a local reference frame has a definition: A reference frame that is local to an observer.
    A reference frame is not a source of real forces like gravity. A rotating or accelerating frame can be a source of fictitious forces.
    The "both sharing the same spin" phrase sounds wrong. You seem to be saying that your theory can only be applied to observers and bodies with the same spin rate and axis, e.g. excludes a Foucault pendulum. Note that the Earth rotates and we can pick an associated local reference frame where it does not rotate. The freedom to select any reference frame is one of the foundations and complexities of general relativity.

    Hypothesis 1 is wrong for an accelerating frame. If you restrict it to an inertial frame then we have the speed of light postulate in SR.
    Hypothesis 2 has an "bounded maximum" assumption in it which is not good. You should be deriving that there is a specific bounded maximum for kinetic energy from the postulate(s).
    Postulate 1 is basically the definition of gravitational time dilation with the vagueness of "related" rather than a specific relation.
    Oups... I haven't seen this post.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,920
    Sorry but I doubt that you will get the paper accepted with these corrections. You seem to be ignoring what a reference frame is, adding unneeded restrictions and getting close to duplicating bits of SR and GR. (Whoops - missed you missing my post )

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Sorry but I doubt that you will get the paper accepted with these corrections. You seem to be ignoring what a reference frame is, adding unneeded restrictions and getting close to duplicating bits of SR and GR. (Whoops - missed you missing my post )
    Thanks... I will make the correction tomorrow.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,971
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I think those are better suited:

    Definition 1: The local reference frame is defined to be the source of the strongest neighboring gravitational acceleration, both sharing the same spin.
    Hypothesis 1: The speed of light is constant in vacuum, relative to the local reference frame.
    Hypothesis 2: The ratio of the kinetic energy of a body and the bounded maximum kinetic energy of the same body is directly proportional to its kinetic time dilation, relative to the local reference frame.
    Postulate 1: A gravitational time dilation is directly proportional to the difference in the gravitational potentials of the observer and the observed object.
    Do you actually understand what a postulate is for in a theory?

    Also, sorry Jens, but I have to slightly disagree with you. Postulates don't need to have already been tested. The validity of them can be inferred from the predictions of the theory and they can be tested later. What postulates do need to be are the simplest and most basic assumptions you need to build your theory. The postulates presented do not look to be that. They look to be more like conclusions that should come out of the theory, which is probably part of the issue. The previous thread had a lot of that - "Assume X. Now after a bit... Look, my theory predicts X!"

    Personally I'd have broken them down more. Something like:
    P1 is a bit of a mess and I think mixes local metrics with reference frames, which you can't really do. I'm not sure how you could salvage this one, to be honest. I've tried twice but I can't think of anything that doesn't mix fundamentally different concepts. You may even have to go back and redefine what you mean by reference frame - because it is not obvious that you are using standard terminology here.
    P2 has a small problem - you have a relative in there. Either reword to match SR/GR (the speed of light is measured to be the same by all observers) or explicitly define how you mean it to be different. Again you have this horrible fuzz of what a reference frame is. Perhaps your first definition should be what you mean by a reference frame and what you mean by a local one. You seem to be using GR terminology but implying some kind of preferred frame.
    P3 needs breaking down
    - Each body has a maximum kinetic energy
    - Then you hit an issue. Time dilation can be measured as different by different observers, you look to be treating it as an absolute. So you need to either unpack this one and make it flow/link from the above postulate or state how you define time dilation (because again, GR terminology, your own definitions)
    P4 is something GR derived from far more basic postulates. You can use it as one, but it seems somewhat flawed to do so. However there is no reason you cannot IF you get somewhere interesting from it.

    So on the balance of things I'd be somewhat harsher than the reviewers you quoted. I'd say that your theory seems to be structurally unsound as you are using overly complex postulates based on poorly defined concepts. You are also cribbing a lot from SR/GR without having either derived these things themselves or broken them down into more fundamental postulates and worked up from there.

    Your claims that these are logical or self-evident are absolutely wrong. Apart from a rewritten postulate 2 these come across as needlessly complicated mixtures of poorly defined concepts and things that should be a result of your theory, not an input.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,381
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Here are Finite Theory's 4 new postulates:
    Thanks for posting this (and thanks to the mods for letting you).

    My biggest problem with these postulates is that they don't make much sense: not only in terms of physics, but just trying to understand what you are saying.

    Postulate 1: The local reference frame is defined to be the source of the strongest gravitational acceleration and following the associated spin of the emitting body.
    A frame of reference is normally a set of coordinates so it is not clear how that can be a "source" of gravitational acceleration.

    Are you limiting this to an inertial frame of can it be accelerating or (as it appears) spinning?

    It is not clear why it would be the source of the "strongest" acceleration. Or even if there can be a strongest. Unless you are abandoning the equivalence of acceleration and gravity (in which case, perhaps that should be the first postulate); gravitational acceleration will be stronger for a frame of reference accelerating upwards from the Earth, than one stationary relative to the Earth.

    What is "following" the spin? Are you talking about a spinning frame of reference? This is (mathematically) quite a complex thing to deal with and seems inappropriate for a postulate.

    And what is the "emitting body" actually emitting?

    In summary, I have no idea what this postulate is trying to say. Euclid was unhappy with his fifth postulate because it seemed to complex. But at least it seemed to be obviously true. Yours is much more complex, I have no idea what it means and so I can't judge if it should be obviously true or not.

    Postulate 2: The speed of light is constant, relative to the local reference frame.
    I'm not sure this is particularly useful. Saying the speed of light is constant in a given frame probably doesn't say much.

    In standard physics, the speed of light is taken to be invariant. Your postulate doesn't say that (it doesn't deny it, either).

    Postulate 3: The kinetic energy of body relative to its maxima induces dilation of time, relative to the local reference frame.
    What is the frame of reference relative to?

    If it is relative to the body, then the kinetic energy of the body must be zero.

    What is the "maxima"? Are you saying there is an upper limit to kinetic energy?

    Asserting that time delay is created by kinetic energy is pretty bold for a postulate. This is definitely not self evident; for example, it can be calculated from the invariant speed of light in special relativity.

    Postulate 4: A gravitational time dilation is the direct cause of the superposed gravitational potentials.
    I have no idea what this means. Again, you seem to be asserting the existence of gravitational time dilation. But how does this cause "superposed gravitational potentials"? And what are "superposed gravitational potentials"?


    In summary:

    I'm afraid I don't really know what these postulates are trying to say (with the exception of 2, which appears to be useless).

    Whatever meaning I can extract from them doesn't appear to make much physical sense.

    Several of them seem far too complex to be postulates; I would expect them to be conclusions from some calculation based on simpler ideas.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,381
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    For example the Earth rotates and so is its associated local reference frame. The same will happen on the surface of the Moon.

    Think of the Earth or the Moon emitting gravitons, really.
    What does rotation have to do with emitting gravitons?

    (I think that is a fair question, within the limits set by the mods, as it relates to the meaning of the postulate. But we shouldn't get into what "emitting gravitons" means as we will definitely be into new ATM territory.)

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,381
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    The 2nd hasn't been tested to its full extent and this is what the experiment proposal I suggest will prove.
    Are you suggesting a test of the one way speed of light? (This is probably pushing the limits of what would be allowed so stick to"yes" or "no" and we will say no more about it ) You could discuss this in q&A by asking whether your experiment could measure the one-way speed of light (or whatever it is you want to measure).

    The 3rd applies to accelerated particles on the surface of the Earth. I predict slightly different kinetic time dilation to particles going at speeds > 0.5c.

    The 4th is already proven by GR as gravitational time dilation is directly proportional to the superimposed gravitational potentials.
    I don't really see how either of those statements relate to the wording of the postulates. (I don't think the last one is true, either but that is off topic. Again, you could ask about that in Q&A)

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,381
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Definition 1: The local reference frame is defined to be the source of the strongest neighboring gravitational acceleration, both sharing the same spin.
    This, perhaps, makes even less sense.

    You still have a frame of reference as a source gravitational acceleration. Which doesn't make sense.

    You say neighbouring, but that implies two things; what is neighbouring to what?

    And you say "both" but both what?

    You need to sit down and think though much more carefully what you are trying to say. Maybe try explaining it to someone else and see what they don't understand. Or just imagine explaining it to someone else (rather than just writing down what is in your head!).

    Getting ideas on paper clearly can be hard (which is good, it is why I get paid for it!)

    Hypothesis 1: The speed of light is constant in vacuum, relative to the local reference frame.
    It seems odd to hypothesise this when it is generally accepted on theoretical and experimental grounds. And SR is based on the much stronger postulate that it is invariant.

    Hypothesis 2: The ratio of the kinetic energy of a body and the bounded maximum kinetic energy of the same body is directly proportional to its kinetic time dilation, relative to the local reference frame.
    This is a bit clearer.

    There is no maximum kinetic energy. And time dilation is known (from theory and measurement) not to be proportional to velocity and therefore not proportional to kinetic energy.

    Postulate 1: A gravitational time dilation is directly proportional to the difference in the gravitational potentials of the observer and the observed object.
    This is not a postulate, it is a calculated result from GR.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Ok I will share the content of this thread and rehire the PhD to formulate something intelligent. It may take a few days. Thanks for your patience.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Getting ideas on paper clearly can be hard (which is good, it is why I get paid for it!)
    It is nice that this sentence is ambiguous. (Reading it again, it looks like it says "it is obvious it can be hard" whereas what I meant was "it is hard to express ideas clearly". Clearly.)

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,808
    So I think we're now clear that the reviewers' comments were correct. We don't need to invoke some vast conspiracy against new science in order to explain why this paper was rejected.
    And it will happen every single time this paper is submitted, unless these "postulates" can be put into some coherent form. Reviewers and editors will reject it as being fundamentally flawed. There will be no request for revision, since the whole thing would need to be rebuilt from the ground up.
    Since a door closes every time you incur a rejection of this kind, I'd suggest you really need to spend a lot of time trying to explain your ideas to someone who understands physics - get your practice done without soaking up reviewers' and editors' time.

    Grant Hutchison
    Blog

    Note:
    During life, we all develop attitudes and strategies to make our interactions with others more pleasant and useful. If I mention mine here, those comments can apply only to myself, my experiences and my situation. Such remarks cannot and should not be construed as dismissing, denigrating, devaluing or criticizing any different attitudes and strategies that other people have evolved as a result of their different situation and different experiences.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    14,883
    This thread's only purpose was to post the postulates mentioned here to help answer the question why a journal might reject them as unfounded, and that question has been sufficiently answered. As the OP is already discussing the postulates beyond that initial purpose, this thread is closed. As usual, report this post if there is a convincing reason to reopen it.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

Posting Permissions

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