The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

DeathDart said:
Don't try that!

It is the same velocity, not the same rotation speed.

Heck, some of the talent around here, wouldn't even rate as good minions.
Click to expand...

Wrong - it's neither.

It's the average speed. The velocity dispersion is very large. It's pretty obvious from your posts that you don't know that.

Few stars are in circular orbits in the plane of the galaxy with the average speed. Some are in circular orbits in the plane with the average speed but opposite velocity. Some are in elliptical orbits in the plane. Some are in circular orbits out of the plane. Some are in elliptical orbits out of the plane.

In short, if you look at the stars in some region of the galaxy (like the region around us), they're going in all different directions.
 
Last edited:
Mashuna said:
Speaking of psychological pathologies. . .
Click to expand...


Dark Matter is a symptom, but this too, shall pass.

Mathematics doesn't give you imagination.

A lot of scientists would be better educated, if they spent a few years working in the Patent Office.

Tell me again, what is the PRACTICAL difference between a field that doesn't cancel, but still produces dilation, and a field which cancels, leaving potential to produce dilation??

Welcome back to reality.
 
DeathDart said:
I was just noting that some of my detractors, have the same psychological pathologies, commonly found in the bureau.

Oh, respect for being the nice doggy. I will keep my self respect as a lone wolf, rather than, a slobbering minion.

I am close, so IF I am wrong, the truth won't be too far away.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about, but you sound like a conspiracy theorist. Are you ?
 
DeathDart said:
Ok, first question, are you familiar with the galactic velocity curve anomaly.
Click to expand...
Yes.

DeathDart said:
..snipped ignorance of the galactic velocity curve anomaly...
So what evidence supports the existence of "Dark Matter", as in direct detection of it.
Click to expand...
Observational evidence for dark matter includes direct measurement of it in the same sense that we have direct measurements of the existence of stars. The only difference is that we use gravity rather than light to image dark matter.
Of course we do not have actual direct measurements of dark matter as in detecting dark mater in labs here on Earth, despite some hints in several experiments: Direct detection experiments.

So the situation is: We have good evidence that dark matter exists (as good as that for the existence of stars). but unlike stars we have no direct evidence for the composition of dark matter.
 
How could fast time flows exist, without it being noticed?

If you saw a paper from an astronomer that claimed that objects were traveling at relativistic speeds with very little redshift, what would you think?

Stories astronomers tell by the campfires, to scare the new initiates.​

The one about the objects moving near the speed of light, without any significant red shifts. When you see an object move at ridiculous speed, don't try and publish it, or you will go moon blind. Just ignore it, and you will still be allowed to use the telescopes.

They might publish photographs that show insane velocities between a succession of photographs, but they won't mention that part. It isn't science.

If you ask for photos that might show what I am describing, they may give them to you. But they won't interpret them for you.

If what I suggest is correct, then the photographs exist, but since it can't really happen, and it doesn't make any sense, it isn't real.

Without a theory to explain it, no one would take the chance of making those claims.


Without the pictures, I don't have a theory.

Without a theory, no one is going to supply the pictures.


A little bit of a rerun follows.
SNR brightening, may represent time moving faster for a small mass as it enters gravitationally weak space. It is the visible evidence for time moving faster. I also suggest the Time_Space is Lorentz invariant. Absolute velocity may not be externally determinable, by blue and red shifts alone.

SNR 1987A
http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/opo0409b/

Click on images 14 and 15 in separate windows.
Two HST pictures are Scrapbook picture 14 and picture 15. About 109 Days between pictures

Examine the filaments.

Minimum inside radius of bright points approximately .4 ly
Examine filaments near edges, estimate their velocity. No apparent change in their light spectrum.
 
You have no theory - just non-science, ignorance (supernova bnrighten because they explode!) and wishful thinking.
Thus it is a waste of time doing your work for you.

As for SNR 1987A and the pretty pictures, it is up to you to estimate the velocity of the fillaments - show your working.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
You have no theory - just non-science, ignorance (supernova bnrighten because they explode!) and wishful thinking.
Thus it is a waste of time doing your work for you.

As for SNR 1987A and the pretty pictures, it is up to you to estimate the velocity of the fillaments - show your working.
Click to expand...

Theory
1. The origin of time, is in space.

2. In empty space, time is flowing at an infinite speed.

3. Inertial mass is inversely proportional to time.

4. The Big Bang was expanding into empty space, it wasn't inflation, that is how empty space acts.

5. Matter and gravity slow the flow of time in space.

6. The flat galactic velocity curve is because stars farther out are in weaker gravity fields, which translates to faster time. Faster time divides into the inertial mass. The star must travel at a higher velocity to produce enough centrifugal force to equal gravity.

6A. (This could be wrong)Gravitational Mass and Inertial Mass are not the same thing. Stars orbiting farther out from galaxies still experience the same amount of gravitational force, but their inertial mass is reduced.

7. Supernova Remnant Brightening occurs when nova isotopes encounter faster time flows and half life goes down.

(supernova bnrighten because they explode!) This is many years after the explosion Mr. Research.
 
DeathDart said:
Theory
1. The origin of time, is in space.

2. In empty space, time is flowing at an infinite speed.

3. Inertial mass is inversely proportional to time.

4. The Big Bang was expanding into empty space, it wasn't inflation, that is how empty space acts.

5. Matter and gravity slow the flow of time in space.

6. The flat galactic velocity curve is because stars farther out are in weaker gravity fields, which translates to faster time. Faster time divides into the inertial mass. The star must travel at a higher velocity to produce enough centrifugal force to equal gravity.

6A. (This could be wrong)Gravitational Mass and Inertial Mass are not the same thing. Stars orbiting farther out from galaxies still experience the same amount of gravitational force, but their inertial mass is reduced.

7. Supernova Remnant Brightening occurs when nova isotopes encounter faster time flows and half life goes down.

(supernova bnrighten because they explode!) This is many years after the explosion Mr. Research.
Click to expand...

No. Are you trying to make us laugh?
 
dafydd said:
No. Are you trying to make us laugh?
Click to expand...

No, I am trying to make you think.

I could have missed something major, but all I am hearing is, no that's wrong.

Argue that it doesn't explain inflation at the Big Bang.

Argue that it doesn't explain Galactic Velocity curves, WITHOUT invoking Dark Matter, which you better have a bucket of it, if you are going to prove it exists.

Explain why there is always debris to run into, just when the Supernova Isotopes reach fast Time_Space?

And don't tell me astronomers haven't seen stuff moving pretty damn quick, that they had to ignore, because without a scientifically acceptable theory to explain it, you are just asking for early retirement.

Oh my first measurements of those filaments is only showing a velocity of about 5% of light, about 14000 kps. Some of the original SNE material may have gotten up to 19000 kps during the detonation.
 
Well at least the Catholic church doesn't have secular power any more.

The Dark Matter people would have led Physics down a dead end. Given more time, Dark Matter could have become dogma.
 
DeathDart said:
Well at least the Catholic church doesn't have secular power any more.

The Dark Matter people would have led Physics down a dead end. Given more time, Dark Matter could have become dogma.
Click to expand...

I find the mentality of people like you (and there are many, especially here on this forum) endlessly fascinating. It's so fundamentally inconsistent with reality, for one thing. A glance at the arxiv will reveal multiple paper every day that try to eliminate dark matter in one way or the other (ranging from the crazy and creative to the mundane), that challenge the standard cosmological model with data that doesn't fit very well, or that assert in one way or the other that "Einstein was wrong".

This is literally every day. And these are papers written by "mainstream" scientists. If that's dogma, it's certainly a strange kind.

My theory is that at some subconscious level you are very afraid of being wrong, very afraid of the pain of realizing that essentially everything you've spent so much time saying is nonsense. So you take refuge in this counterfactual belief that when people tell you you're wrong, it's because they're part of a big conspiracy to suppress alternative ideas. Any evidence to the contrary is immediately suppressed and forgotten (I think that phenomenon is called "cognitive dissonance).
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
I find the mentality of people like you (and there are many, especially here on this forum) endlessly fascinating. It's so fundamentally inconsistent with reality, for one thing. A glance at the arxiv will reveal multiple paper every day that try to eliminate dark matter in one way or the other (ranging from the crazy and creative to the mundane), that challenge the standard cosmological model with data that doesn't fit very well, or that assert in one way or the other that "Einstein was wrong".

This is literally every day. And these are papers written by "mainstream" scientists. If that's dogma, it's certainly a strange kind.

My theory is that at some subconscious level you are very afraid of being wrong, very afraid of the pain of realizing that essentially everything you've spent so much time saying is nonsense. So you take refuge in this counterfactual belief that when people tell you you're wrong, it's because they're part of a big conspiracy to suppress alternative ideas. Any evidence to the contrary is immediately suppressed and forgotten (I think that phenomenon is called "cognitive dissonance).
Click to expand...

Actually for the space that Einstein knew about, he did get it right. Special and General Relativity are still very important in Time Space. I am changing a very significant number in those calculations, and modifying other equations for low gravity space. The remainder of the equations seem to remain applicable.

I found a paper that had some objects near 1987a appear to be going faster than light. I will check it out and see if is consistent with my theory. At first look it seems to have some problems, plus I need to see criticisms of the observations to see what they are saying about it. Even if it supports it, this doesn't look very strong.
 
DeathDart said:
Actually for the space that Einstein knew about, he did get it right. Special and General Relativity are still very important in Time Space. I am changing a very significant number in those calculations, and modifying other equations for low gravity space. The remainder of the equations seem to remain applicable.

I found a paper that had some objects near 1987a appear to be going faster than light. I will check it out and see if is consistent with my theory. At first look it seems to have some problems, plus I need to see criticisms of the observations to see what they are saying about it. Even if it supports it, this doesn't look very strong.
Click to expand...

How generous of you. You have no theory. What about my infinite speed of time question?
 
DeathDart said:
Actually for the space that Einstein knew about, he did get it right. Special and General Relativity are still very important in Time Space. I am changing a very significant number in those calculations, and modifying other equations for low gravity space. The remainder of the equations seem to remain applicable.

I found a paper that had some objects near 1987a appear to be going faster than light. I will check it out and see if is consistent with my theory. At first look it seems to have some problems, plus I need to see criticisms of the observations to see what they are saying about it. Even if it supports it, this doesn't look very strong.
Click to expand...

It's odd that you chose to quote sol's post in this reply considering that it is in no way a reply to his actual words. He pointed out that mainstream physics does not in any way resemble dogma (in reply to your insinuation that it's the dogma that is preventing people accepting your ideas).

No problem with you posting the above, but I just hope you realise it's not in any way related to the post you quoted. :)
 
dafydd said:
How generous of you. You have no theory. What about my infinite speed of time question?
Click to expand...

Infinite speed of time in empty space.

Locally I am trying to see if the NASA calculations for the planets might be compensating for the difference. First understanding their equations and what the mean anomaly means. I think it means don't expect the planet to be on the dot.

Those superluminal blobs they spotted early after 1987a detonated are unrelated phenomena. They were very narrow jets of matter traveling about .5 c. They were in way too close to where the star was, to be related.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom