The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

DeathDart said:
Because the concept of infinite time affects mass, it would change it from the current 1 to infinity, to 0, to infinity. It is not a point of logic, it is a point of aesthetics.
Click to expand...

It is a point of nonsense based on a misunderstanding, as far as I can tell. Mass does go from 0 to infinity - there are particles in nature with exactly 0 mass, particles with very, very small masses, and particles with fairly high (by particle physics standards) masses.

As for your "time runs at an infinite rate in perfect vacuum", you have apparently already repudiated that, since you seem to agree that it runs at a finite rate both inside and outside of a thin shell of mass.

So I have no idea what you are talking about, basically.
 
sol invictus said:
It is a point of nonsense based on a misunderstanding, as far as I can tell. Mass does go from 0 to infinity - there are particles in nature with exactly 0 mass, particles with very, very small masses, and particles with fairly high (by particle physics standards) masses.

As for your "time runs at an infinite rate in perfect vacuum", you have apparently already repudiated that, since you seem to agree that it runs at a finite rate both inside and outside of a thin shell of mass.

So I have no idea what you are talking about, basically.
Click to expand...

It is over 9000 A.U. to the nearest space with that weak of a gravitational field.

What I do agree on, is that whatever you call it, a field or a potential, it does not cancel. There is not any method of canceling out a gravitational (field) to test this, in nearby space.

Since a fixed framework of space can have a faster time flow, light and other objects with mass and velocity pretty much appear to act the same as they always do. That is unless you actually try to measure the speed of an object, by either a very large baseline, or by estimating its speed from its surroundings. Redshift is only accurate if you know the time flow of the object emitting or reflecting the light.

Other than a few phenomena like massive stars moving through space faster than they should, and the universe not listening to what humans think about how the universe should work.

My best guess, at present, is equal to gT2=G/2 or 3.337e-11m/s² which would equal a time flow of 2, The constant G as a gravitational field, could also represent the absolute 1 (one) time baseline (without motion or gravity) for the flow of time. This is only a guess.

This is the same G as the gravitational constant. This factor linearizes the mks system so that the math works out correctly for masses measured with the mks system. The mks system also incorporates time, how weird.

This factor might also represent several solutions to Time Space metrics. It could represent 1, 2, or the SQRT(2) or divide G by 2. But it is in the basic formula for calculating the strength of gravity for a reason, and this number may not be a coincidence when applied to other problems.

NGC 6946 appears to follow my calculations. The problem is that my numbers are higher than theirs past 15 kpc. They may have imaged a part of the spiral as it was collapsing inward toward the observer. The equations are very sensitive to minor fluctuations from the core, like a bar section of a galaxy rotating.

As the end of the bar approaches, the spiral arms are pulled in, as the arms pass, the spiral arms move back out. Past 3.337e-11ms gravitational fields get non-linear quick.

No windup problem that I can see, just something else that the humans missed.
 
Last edited:
DeathDart said:
It is over 9000 A.U. to the nearest space with that weak of a gravitational field.

What I do agree on, is that whatever you call it, a field or a potential, it does not cancel. There is not any method of canceling out a gravitational (field) to test this, in nearby space.
Click to expand...

You don't have a theory, DD. Not anywhere near. Just a bunch of vague and ill-formed ideas.

If you had a theory, you could answer simple, basic questions about the extraordinarily simple model (a spherical shell of mass) that I brought up. Like: is the "rate of time flow" infinite inside the shell? Outside the shell? Infinitely far from the shell? Is the redshift of a Lyman alpha photon emitted by hydrogen inside the shell infinite or finite when it reaches infinity? Is escape velocity from the shell infinite or finite? Etc.

These are very simple questions. That you have the gall to write "NGC 6946 appears to follow my calculations" when you cannot answer them only adds to the surreal absurdity of this thread.
 
DeathDart said:
My best guess, at present, is equal to gT2=G/2 or 3.337e-11m/s² which would equal a time flow of 2, The constant G as a gravitational field, could also represent the absolute 1 (one) time baseline (without motion or gravity) for the flow of time. This is only a guess.

This is the same G as the gravitational constant. This factor linearizes the mks system so that the math works out correctly for masses measured with the mks system. The mks system also incorporates time, how weird.
Click to expand...
Please please please stop abusing units.

This is broadly the equivalent in physics of saying something not just untrue but nonsensical - like "This breadbasket is quickly."
 
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.
 
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
 
If the message board doesn't work, use this forum to ask for another contact method.
 
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...

That's funny!
 
Have you heard the expression "You have to crawl before you can walk?"

You are proposing a radical overhaul of our understanding of physics. Before you can be qualified to do that, you have to study our current understanding of physics, starting with the basics and then working your way to more advanced topics.

The myth of the amateur researcher is powerful, but there isn't much truth to it. Einstein didn't have much post-doctoral academic experience when he proposed special relativity - but he did have a Ph.D in physics, and his work in the patent office was connected to his field.
 
DeathDart said:
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...

Hey DeathDart: you are already in a discussion with a lot of people who have written papers, are able to read what you're saying and translate it into physics language as far as possible.

They're all saying, as far as I have seen, that your ideas do not work and are not worth pursuing.

What makes you think that your "collaborator" won't say the same thing?
 
godless dave said:
Have you heard the expression "You have to crawl before you can walk?"

You are proposing a radical overhaul of our understanding of physics. Before you can be qualified to do that, you have to study our current understanding of physics, starting with the basics and then working your way to more advanced topics.

The myth of the amateur researcher is powerful, but there isn't much truth to it. Einstein didn't have much post-doctoral academic experience when he proposed special relativity - but he did have a Ph.D in physics, and his work in the patent office was connected to his field.
Click to expand...

Space Time Relativity<G 6.674E-11ms^2>Time Space

If the collaborator feels that there isn't any merit to this idea, then they shouldn't contact me.

So far, it has corrected the galactic curve velocities, it also appears to answer the formation and actions of spiral galaxies. Appears to, since it would take a serious computer model to seal the case.

The Supernova remnant brightening appeared to be the easiest example.

But unlike the Supernova Explosion SNE, the isotope signature may be more complicated to detect. Essentially in the SNE you have the isotopes in a high density environment that isn't very subtle.

When the isotopes reach Time Space g= 6.674E-11ms^2 their density would rate as a hard vacuum on Earth. This low density also allows the atoms and particles to have free movement. Very subtle effects like magnetic fields and particle flows could occur.

I don't what will happen with the energy released by the isotopes, under these conditions. Also the spectra might be unusual since it is possible that these conditions may allow only some of the radiation, gamma, X-ray, and particles to reach us without absorption by other particles.

I am a Truffle Hound, I find the truffles for the Great Chefs, Truffles being ideas in the rough.

The Great Chefs are the people who can take my scruffy ideas and give them the concise and elegant form, that I cannot.

I am happy as a Truffle Hound, and I think I am good at it.
 
Space Time Relativity<G 6.674E-11ms^2>Time Space

The time correction formula (most recent guess).
1+((gT1)/g) = Flow of time g must be less than 6.674E-11 m/s before this equation applies.

gT1 = 6.674E-11 m/s This must be applied to the calculated mass not the velocity. Recalculate the velocity with the new mass. You will have to take an educated guess where the factor is applied in the curve, it is usually down slope of the knee.
g is the calculated gravitational field strength at this distance (radius) from the center.

The Galactic Velocity Curve appear to be the result of faster time, in regions of low gravity. The square of the distance law does predict gravitational strength correctly.

So have you tried to run the Galaxy Curves that I gave you, to verify my results? That is simple math. When you try to set the mass distribution, you will discover how sensitive the orbits in Spiral galaxies are to small disturbances. You will feel the spiral arms collapsing and expanding.

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.
 
DeathDart said:
I am a Truffle Hound, I find the truffles for the Great Chefs, Truffles being ideas in the rough.

The Great Chefs are the people who can take my scruffy ideas and give them the concise and elegant form, that I cannot.

I am happy as a Truffle Hound, and I think I am good at it.
Click to expand...

What makes you think you are good at generating useful ideas?
 
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...


You have got to be kidding.

You have nothing to write about.
 
DeathDart said:
Nice try
Click to expand...


Seriously, you don't have anything to write about.

You don't understand the basics of the field you are trying to "fix".

You ignore all attempts of experts in that field to correct your misunderstandings.

You have not contributed a single idea that anyone who knows anything about the field thinks is intelligible and/or worth looking at.

Your posts on this thread have been pathetic and are an utter waste of everyone's time.

Please stop this nonsense.
 
Science is a method for finding out whether or not you are wrong.

DeathDart said:
If the collaborator feels that there isn't any merit to this idea, then they shouldn't contact me.
Click to expand...

DeathDart has found a method for avoiding finding out whether or not he's wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom