The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

[DeathDart]

Just because you can't figure out to do something doesn't mean it can't be done.

That is why I am chosen for last place in the gauntlet for problems. The strange problems where other peoples backgrounds and talents fail. I don't succeed very often, but I think I have your mystical dark matter on the defensive.

 

[Reality Check]

So if you assume that all the lensing is due to gravity, then you have too little visible mass.

Yes - it is amazing what science can do.

So I can explain the galactic velocity curve as time (and inertial mass) changing in a weak gravitational field AND I can create a Time_Space lens to bend light around galaxies.

No you cannot because 'Time_Space ' is your fantasy and nothing to do with reality. To explain galactic velocity curves you will have to have an actual theory rather than an idea in your head. That means learning mathematics and physics rather then asserting that your fantasy can explain anything.

Amazing what changing a 1 to infinity will do.

This is where the fantasy begins: 1 is a number. Infinity is not a number.

 

[Reality Check]

I don't succeed very often, but I think I have your mystical dark matter on the defensive.

Then you have failed once again. Dark matter is not mythical.
The observational evidence for dark matter.

 

[Complexity]

Amazing what changing a 1 to infinity will do.

You do understand this sounds insane, don't you?

 

[Complexity]

That is why I am chosen for last place in the gauntlet for problems. The strange problems where other peoples backgrounds and talents fail. I don't succeed very often, but I think I have your mystical dark matter on the defensive.

So you have been 'chosen', eh?

Polly want a cracker?

 

[DeathDart]

Time alone cannot do the lensing becasue time cannot change the path of a light ray. You need curved space-time to create do the lensing.

"Time_Space" is some fantasy of yours with no backing in reality.
What is real is space-time as used in General Relativity becuase that corresponds with reality (tests of general relatvity).

Time is not G/g until you are below g=G. g= local gravity

6.674E-11ms^2>Time_Space

A light beam is affected by time, if the time in it's path is not is not flat, but is instead, a gradient.

Light passing by a galaxy would encounter slower time toward the galaxy.

Going by a galaxy, time is moving slower closer to the galaxy, the fast side is away from the galaxy. Sounds like I am describing a gravitational field, and not a time lens.

 

[Complexity]

1 is a number. Infinity is not a number.

That is sort of like saying '2 is a number but 2.53 is not a number'.

It all depends on the variety of numbers that you are working with.

'Infinity' is one of the transfinite numbers.

I agree that all of this is far beyond DD's understanding, and his nonsense about changing 1 to infinity is... nonsense - I just want to point out that there are many types of numbers.

 

[DeathDart]

So you have been 'chosen', eh?

Polly want a cracker?

To paraphrase an old saying.

Many are called.

Few are chosen.

Some are dragged kicking, and screaming.

I fit in the category: idontwannadoit

 

[DeathDart]

That is sort of like saying '2 is a number but 2.53 is not a number'.

It all depends on the variety of numbers that you are working with.

'Infinity' is one of the transfinite numbers.

I agree that all of this is far beyond DD's understanding, and his nonsense about changing 1 to infinity is... nonsense - I just want to point out that there are many types of numbers.

You are correct in a way. Infinity might exist for empty space, but what would the mass of a particle do. As a practical(?) matter even a tiny particle would be at some time flow, less than infinity. That would be an interesting calculation, though it might be premature, with one poorly tested metric.

 

[Complexity]

To paraphrase an old saying.

Many are called.

Few are chosen.

Some are dragged kicking, and screaming.

I fit in the category: idontwannadoit

You mean 'icantdoit'.

 

[Complexity]

You are correct in a way. Infinity might exist for empty space, but what would the mass of a particle do. As a practical(?) matter even a tiny particle would be at some time flow, less than infinity. That would be an interesting calculation, though it might be premature, with one poorly tested metric.

I'm not suggesting that transfinite numbers are relevant to physics.

I was simply objecting to the statement that infinity is not a number.

Your stuff is so bad it is not even wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

...Sounds like I am describing a gravitational field, and not a time lens.

Sounds like you are writing gibberish.
Reads like you are writing gibberish.
Maybe you are writing gibberish?

A light beam that is 'affected by time' does not change its path.
A gravitational field changes the path of a light beam, e.g. the Sun bends light as verified by observations.

 

[DeathDart]

Do you know about the Gallileo syndrome ?

Are you the Catholic Church?

 

[DeathDart]

So, DD, you're saying that regions of gravitational stability in space, where the gravitational forces effectively cancel out (at least in the local frame of reference), such as at Lagrange points, are fictional?

Amazing

ETA: To everyone else, I know that I'm presenting a simplified picture of Lagrange points; I'm just trying to get this basic idea (that gravitational forces can cancel) through to DD.

Forces equal. Both fields are present, and they add. The mass at a Lagrange point is resting on the top of a peak ,with slopes heading to both masses. I read somewhere that they aren't very stable. You shouldn't put a satellite directly on the Lagrange point. It is best to orbit the Lagrange point in some rather creative minimal energy orbits. The orbits are boggleminding.

Time Dilation from both masses is present at the Lagrange Point.

 

[Complexity]

Unbelievable.

 

[Roboramma]

So if you assume that all the lensing is due to gravity, then you have too little visible mass.

So Time_Space lensing doesn't even enter the picture.

So I can explain the galactic velocity curve as time (and inertial mass) changing in a weak gravitational field AND I can create a Time_Space lens to bend light around galaxies.

Amazing what changing a 1 to infinity will do.

No, you can't. If you could, you'd have posted the calculations based on your theory. The problem is, you don't even have a theory.

Don't claim that your theory can explain data that you haven't even bothered to analyise. Perhaps you might go so far as to say, "My theory could potentially explain..." but until you've actually done the work, at what point have you explained "the galactic velocity curve as time (and inertial mass) changing in a weak gravitational field"?

 

[DeathDart]

You came up with a "correction" that disagrees radically with many observations, hasn't been shown to actually agree with precise terrestrial tests of gravitational time dilation, and even breaks energy conservation. Why should anyone accept your idea?

It does not disagree radically with observations, it explains the observations better than your Dark Matter. It does disagree with present Physics assumptions. I was going to say Dogma ,but science is doing OK. It is not so bad that I would call it dogmatic.

6.674E-11ms^2>Time Space

If the (potential) metric 6.674E-11ms^2 (which is just a guess which works OK at this time) represents the time base for 1 second Time_Space. Changes would not become apparent until a distance of 1.4E+15 meters or 9,427 A.U.'s.

Show me an experiment done at that distance. Gravitational cancelling doesn't work, so sending Discovery to Jupiter won't help you.

The Supernova Remnants SNR's are one good place to look, since nebular material is pretty energetic, low density, and visible at great distances. You have to make your speed measurements without relying on redshifts or blue shifts giving you the true velocity.

Time_Space obeys Lorentzian constraints. Time_Space appears to bring balance and symmetry to General Relativity.

I could still be wrong, but the correct solution would be very close.

 

[DeathDart]

Sounds like you are writing gibberish.
Reads like you are writing gibberish.
Maybe you are writing gibberish?

A light beam that is 'affected by time' does not change its path.
A gravitational field changes the path of a light beam, e.g. the Sun bends light as verified by observations.

I have seen the light.

Taken that empty space equals infinite time.

Taking that the time gradient would literally extend to the midpoint between galaxies.

Taken that the gradient would affect light traveling for Kilo Parsec distances kpc=3262 light years. A teeny, tiny, itsy, bitsy, bit of force or bending would be enough.

 

[DeathDart]

No, you can't. If you could, you'd have posted the calculations based on your theory. The problem is, you don't even have a theory.

Don't claim that your theory can explain data that you haven't even bothered to analyise. Perhaps you might go so far as to say, "My theory could potentially explain..." but until you've actually done the work, at what point have you explained "the galactic velocity curve as time (and inertial mass) changing in a weak gravitational field"?

The calculations match the curves when corrected with 1+SQRT((gT1)/g) = Flow of time g must be less than 6.674E-11 m/s before this equation applies.

But I have done lots of calculations and there is a chance this is a coincidence.

How the galaxies change with this calculation seems to explain the spiral arms. The factor is extremely non-linear. As the end of the center bar rotates closer creating a tiny change in gravity, the spiral arms begin pulling in. A little matter comes in, and the correction factor drops, more mass moves in, a cascade traveling out to the arms. It doesn't collapse completely, it just condenses down closer to predicted Newtonian velocities.

When I saw this in the math, that was a turning point. I didn't think I would ever really grasp the mechanism of the spiral arms. It was devilishly simple.

 

[DeathDart]

No, you can't. If you could, you'd have posted the calculations based on your theory. The problem is, you don't even have a theory.

My theory is that in empty space, without any matter or gravity, the flow of time is infinite.

Time originates in space, matter just slows it down.

Don't claim that your theory can explain data that you haven't even bothered to analyise. Perhaps you might go so far as to say, "My theory could potentially explain..." but until you've actually done the work, at what point have you explained "the galactic velocity curve as time (and inertial mass) changing in a weak gravitational field"?

My theory is that in empty space, without any matter or gravity, the flow of time is infinite.

Time originates in space, matter just slows it down.

With objective scientists you would be correct, with this pack of wolves you can't show weakness. Yes, I have spoken to scientists, gave a really crappy (but imaginative) paper. I am still surprised, and pleased that they let me at least try.

The people on this forum began their attacks immediately. I lost most of the battles, but even that feedback helped to strengthen the idea. I was actually galvanized to fight harder, when I could see the solution to the spiral arms. Then it was time to go on the offensive.