The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

[MattusMaximus]

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.

Yes, the force field vectors do add, and in the local frame of reference they effectively cancel each other out. Which is why Lagrange points are considered regions of stability. If the forces didn't cancel out, there would be no stability - that is basic physics (Newton's Laws).

Get it?

 

[MattusMaximus]

It does not disagree radically with observations, it explains the observations better than your Dark Matter.

Here's another one, DD: write down a quantifiable prediction that your "theory" makes which we can test.

 

[catsmate]

Those must be federal crickets, no one else is allowed in this forum.

Having paranoid fantasies now?

I knew about the Dunning-Kruger effect a long time ago.

You're it's poster child.

 

[edd]

Great.

Then put up or shut up. Submit your research for publication in a respected, peer-reviewed physics/cosmology journal.

I kind of doubt it'd make it that far, but I think peer reviewers have enough on their plate.

 

[DeathDart]

Great.

Then put up or shut up. Submit your research for publication in a respected, peer-reviewed physics/cosmology journal.

You have one of them lawman attitudes, when it comes to someone who hits them back.

Physic Letters D requires $2700, so I still have to find a collaborator.

Plus, you all seem to be in a hurry, now that I am no longer the pinata.

I am just the Truffle Hound, I still need to find the Chef.

I do know my limitations, as least as a writer.

 

[DeathDart]

Ahem, DD, Lagrange points? You know, those regions where gravitational effects cancel out?

Are they real or just a figment of our collective imagination?

You seem to have lost your place in the script.You used this question before!

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.

 

[DeathDart]

I kind of doubt it'd make it that far, but I think peer reviewers have enough on their plate.

The last time I dealt with this many **** ***** it was at the F.B.I. Are you sure that none of you work for the Bureau?

Edited, breach of rule 10.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[edd]

The last I dealt with this many **** ***** it was at the F.B.I. Are you sure that none of you work for the Bureau?

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

No, I know where I work, and my colleagues are the kind of people who would be your peer reviewers, and I know there are incredibly basic issues that need sorting out before you get to the point of needing peer review.

 

[DeathDart]

Space_Time Relativity< G 6.674E-11ms^2 >Time_Space

I suggest that in apparently empty space, the flow of time is infinite. Space is not just an empty container. I suggest that it is the source of time.

It has always been assumed that one (1) was the limit for time flow. I believe that this is an assumption which needs to be examined.

The discrepancy in the Galactic Velocity Curve could be the result of faster time, in regions of low gravity.

The time correction formula:
1+SQRT((gT1)/g) = Flow of time g must be less than 6.674E-11 m/s before this equation applies.
When the mass model shows a "g" that is less than 6.674E-11ms^2 I multiply "g" by 1+SQRT((gT1)/g) then I take that "g*corr" and calculate the velocity at that radius by (Sqrt(radius*(g*corr))) to get the corrected velocity.

gT1 = 6.674E-11 m/s This must be applied to the calculated MASS or g, 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 up slope of the knee. The the knee is where the curve goes horizontal and non-linear.

gT1 = 6.674E-11 m/s^2 The same value a G . It appears to be the value that is the strength of the gravitational field where time =1. Below this value it appears that time may speed up. Because gT1 = 6.674E-11 m/s^2= 1 second There are no observable effects locally. >9000AU

Any solution that uses time to correct the velocity curves would also have time effects showing up in other places.

One example may be SNR Supernova Remnant brightening. This example could show time moving faster for a small mass as it enters gravitationally weak space. An excellent example of this is Supernova 1987A, brightening after many years. I ran the numbers and it was close.

The Super Nova creates, and then expels, elemental isotopes at high velocities 2000 Kms to 10,000 Kms. After traveling at these velocities, the isotopes may enter into regions where the gravitational field strength is below gT1= 6.674E-11ms^2. I suggest that as these isotopes enter space with a faster flow of time, it will decrease the isotope's half-life. The isotopes will experience faster time and shorter half-life. This means increased energy production from radioactive decay, and the SNR becomes brighter.

The current accepted cause SNR brightening is an impact between previously ejected material and high speed ejecta from the Supernova Explosion. Both phenomena, shortened half-life, and the collision process may coexist.

Human Collaborator Still Wanted (Seriously)

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.

 

[edd]

Right. Suppose I tell you G has the value 2.13e-8 furlong^3 / dram fortnight^2, which is 6.674e-11 m^3 / kg s^2. When in m/s^2 (or ms^2, because you are not consistent) does your 'transition' occur?

Does this drive the point home?

 

[DeathDart]

Velocity is not always kinetic energy

The flat velocity at the the onset of 6.674e-11 ms^s is one clue.

A flat velocity means that radial segregation is apparently much less stringent.

"Apparently" because if the energy content of all those bodies was the same, why don't they all collapse into one orbit? They have the same velocity.

They do not have the same kinetic energy, because they do not exist in the same Time_Space or flow of time.

The flow of time, directly affects the inertial mass of a body that is immersed in it. Inertial mass is directly divided by time flow.

The bodies have the same velocities, but not the same kinetic energy, because the flow of time is FASTER for the outer ones.
Inertial mass is directly affected by Time_Space

If the outer ones try to move in closer, their speed will drop as they enter slower time.

Velocity segregation has been replaced by time and kinetic segregation. The answer was staring us in the face. Their velocities are the same, but not their kinetic energy!

 

[DeathDart]

Can you say sushi?

Later

 

[Reality Check]

Sushi

Can you say 'DeathDart is writing gibberish in this thread?

 

[sol invictus]

Right, one last time for tonight.

The gravitational field g = GM / r^2. You say something special happens when g = G. Which means something special happens when M / r^2 = 1.

But M/r^2 = 1 at different masses and distances depending solely on convention and not on anything physically important, unless perhaps you work in some natural units. Which you are not.

Obviously DD got that figure from some idiotic misunderstanding of dimensional analysis and algebra. But remember that according to MOND you should modify the strength of Newtonian gravity when the acceleration due to gravity is less than about 1.2E-10 m/s^2, which happens to not be so far from DD's 6.674E-11 m/s^2.

In other words it is in fact true that a modification of the acceleration due to gravity at below ~1E-10 m/s^2 can account for galactic rotation curves. Of course that was noticed decades ago by Milgrom, so it's not exactly news. And it fails to account for the bullet cluster, gravitational lensing, cosmology, etc. And in DD's version, you modify the flow of time instead, which is flatly inconsistent with tons of cosmological data.

 

[Reality Check]

...
gT1 = 6.674E-11 m/s^2 The same value a G.
...

Confusing your arbitary number gT1 with G is a bad mistake.
It makes you seem so ignorant that you think that G has the units of acceleration. It does not.

The fact that you decided to make up an number with the same digits as G and call it an acceleration does not mean anything.

In fact you are wrong. I know that gT1=3.1415 m/s^2 because that is the same value as pi . I am as correct as you.

 

[edd]

Obviously DD got that figure from some idiotic misunderstanding of dimensional analysis and algebra. But remember that according to MOND you should modify the strength of Newtonian gravity when the acceleration due to gravity is less than about 1.2E-10 m/s^2, which happens to not be so far from DD's 6.674E-11 m/s^2.

In other words it is in fact true that a modification of the acceleration due to gravity at below ~1E-10 m/s^2 can account for galactic rotation curves. Of course that was noticed decades ago by Milgrom, so it's not exactly news. And it fails to account for the bullet cluster, gravitational lensing, cosmology, etc. And in DD's version, you modify the flow of time instead, which is flatly inconsistent with tons of cosmological data.

I was going to comment on that myself.

Of course it's amusing to have the value so precisely nailed down as 6.674e-11 m/s^2.

 

[Complexity]

I kind of doubt it'd make it that far, but I think peer reviewers have enough on their plate.

Every moment he spends writing his 'paper' is a moment that he isn't posting here.

 

[DeathDart]

You have seen the darkness that is writing streams of gibberish to a internet forum.

The difference between what you write and the output from a random text generator seems to becoming smaller and smaller .

Good that means my random text generator circuits have finally repaired themselves..

 

[Reality Check]

Good that means my random text generator circuits have finally repaired themselves..

Good that you acknowledge that you are a slightly damaged android

Pity that there is so little actual science and not mush correct mathematics in your posts. But keep on trying. One of these days we may see a coherent post with valid science and mathematics from you.

 

[DeathDart]

Obviously DD got that figure from some idiotic misunderstanding of dimensional analysis and algebra. But remember that according to MOND you should modify the strength of Newtonian gravity when the acceleration due to gravity is less than about 1.2E-10 m/s^2, which happens to not be so far from DD's 6.674E-11 m/s^2.

In other words it is in fact true that a modification of the acceleration due to gravity at below ~1E-10 m/s^2 can account for galactic rotation curves. Of course that was noticed decades ago by Milgrom, so it's not exactly news. And it fails to account for the bullet cluster, gravitational lensing, cosmology, etc. And in DD's version, you modify the flow of time instead, which is flatly inconsistent with tons of cosmological data.

It is kinetically unstable for all those stars to have the same velocity AND kinetic energy, what we see is impossible without either something like MOND or Time_space.

So logically either inertial mass has changed separately from time, or time has changed. You could also use your imagination to find another possibility.

That X-Ray picture of the Bullet Cluster took a mere 140 hr exposure time from Chandra. How far away is the Bullet Cluster? A difficult noisy measurement from that distance. We call it photon counting, I wonder why that is?

I hope it doesn't answer everything, though it could make the universe a little more accessible. I could park in galactically handicapped spaces.

Most of the phenomena other than the curves, and the spirals, would be masked by Lorentzian framework effects. Einstein or Lorentz got it right for the whole universe, even the parts they didn't know about.