The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

Roboramma said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

I also have problems remembering what questions people have asked me. My mind will diverge along lines that are logically connected, but with less and less relation to the original question. Then I have to ask people what question I was answering. Not a very good sign of mental discipline.

At this point. Dark Matter is starting to become the orthodoxy, if this were to continue for another 20-50 years it could become dogma. I really don't think it answers or helps answer the problems. To me, it is just a patch that you can't build on, it really doesn't seem to lead anywhere.

I don't think (so far) that I am wrong. But I have this feeling that I have missed something, it could be just fatigue. As far as taking my ideas and doing an Old Yeller on them, this iteration does not have as much time invested, as some other ideas, that I have put down.

The feeling I have, is that I have expanded the idea into too many areas, without enough analysis. At the intuitive level it seems right, but in the past my intuition has been off. Usually when I am new to an area and haven't programmed the rules in. Would I bet my life that I am right, No.

I have really assessed your arguments. Einstein created a robust framework that applies to infinite time. If you think I was arguing that Einstein was wrong, without Einstein, my theory would collapse. It takes Einsteins framework and applies it to Galactic Velocity curves, and the inflation of the Big Bang.

As far as light moving over absolute distances at many times local speed, that is extending the solution from Galactic Orbital velocities, to the time space between galaxies. It seems intuitively correct. It appears to be a direct extension of relativity, in a right angle sort of way.

I guess what makes me the most uneasy about it, is that it appears too simple. At least it kinda has Occam in its corner.
 
DeathDart said:
I also have problems remembering what questions people have asked me. My mind will diverge along lines that are logically connected, but with less and less relation to the original question. Then I have to ask people what question I was answering. Not a very good sign of mental discipline.

At this point. Dark Matter is starting to become the orthodoxy, if this were to continue for another 20-50 years it could become dogma. I really don't think it answers or helps answer the problems. To me, it is just a patch that you can't build on, it really doesn't seem to lead anywhere.

I don't think (so far) that I am wrong. But I have this feeling that I have missed something, it could be just fatigue. As far as taking my ideas and doing an Old Yeller on them, this iteration does not have as much time invested, as some other ideas, that I have put down.
Click to expand...

It's interesting how precisely this matches the theory I proposed in post 415....

Regarding your "theory", DD, in this thread we've identified a major problem with it. If time runs faster (than it does on earth) anywhere that's visible to earth, then atomic emission and absorption lines from those regions will necessarily be blueshifted. We see no such effect. That alone places a very hard constraint on your "theory", one which probably rules it out as having any noticeable effect on gravity.

If you were actually interested in physics and not crippled by fear of being wrong, you would pursue the above issue, find out what the constraint is, and see where it leaves you. But I don't think you actually are interested in physics or science - you're interested in yourself.
 
Last edited:
DeathDart said:
Theory
1. The origin of time, is in space.
Click to expand...
Nonsense making everything else moot.

ETA: sol invictus's comment above is also relevant.
Astronomers frequently observe radiaiton from 'empty space', e.g. the X-rays emitted from the intracluster medium.
This radiation is not blue-shifted. Your idea predicts that it will be blue-shifted. Thus your idea is wrong.

DeathDart said:
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...
Mr I Cannot Write Complete Posts: If you say that supernova filaments brighten then it is usual to give a source for the observation so that everyone can be sure about what you are referring to.

So lets do the research that you have neglected. Here is the original press release: New Supernova Remnant Lights Up
A supernova remnant consists of material ejected from an exploding star, as well as the interstellar material it sweeps up. The debris of SN 1987A is beginning to impact the surrounding ring, creating powerful shock waves that generate X-rays observed with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. Those X-rays are illuminating the supernova debris and shock heating is making it glow. The same process powers well-known supernova remnants in our galaxy like Cassiopeia A.
...
This research appears in a paper in the June 9, 2011 issue of Nature. The first author is Josefin Larsson (University of Stockholm).
Click to expand...
So we have actual physics rather than your non-science.
 
Last edited:
DeathDart said:
I don't think (so far) that I am wrong.
Click to expand...

But you are. You're very, very wrong. You cannot recognize how wrong you are because you know almost no basic physics. But rather than spend the time and effort learning basic physics, you're going to lecture people who DO know basic physics, along with a considerable amount of advanced physics, about how wrong they are. And you have the audacity to call what they know "dogma" when you don't understand any of it.

No, DD, it is you who are following dogma. It's just that this dogma is your own peculiar variety, which isn't shared by anyone else. But that doesn't make it any less dogmatic.

But I have this feeling that I have missed something, it could be just fatigue.
Click to expand...

You have missed almost everything.

At the intuitive level it seems right, but in the past my intuition has been off.
Click to expand...

And it's off again. You need to stop relying on intuition, and learn to subject your ideas to cold, hard analysis. But you don't yet have the tools to do that. So stop fiddling with your idea, and start developing the tolls (such as a basic grasp of physics) which might enable you to evaluate your ideas.

Would I bet my life that I am right, No.
Click to expand...

I would bet my life that you're wrong. And I can do so with confidence because I don't need to rely on intuition to see the flaws.

I guess what makes me the most uneasy about it, is that it appears too simple. At least it kinda has Occam in its corner.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have Occam in its corner. Occam presumes that the different models in question all explain the relevant data. But your ideas are actually falsified by the data.
 
sol invictus said:
It's interesting how precisely this matches the theory I proposed in post 415....

Regarding your "theory", DD, in this thread we've identified a major problem with it. If time runs faster (than it does on earth) anywhere that's visible to earth, then atomic emission and absorption lines from those regions will necessarily be blueshifted. We see no such effect. That alone places a very hard constraint on your "theory", one which probably rules it out as having any noticeable effect on gravity.

If you were actually interested in physics and not crippled by fear of being wrong, you would pursue the above issue, find out what the constraint is, and see where it leaves you. But I don't think you actually are interested in physics or science - you're interested in yourself.
Click to expand...
Set the Conditions:
Gravitational field Strength 6.674E-11m s^2
Estimated Time Flow = 2
Velocity= Near Zero
Inertial Mass= .5
Index of Refraction=.5 will follow Inertial Mass
Frequency Emitted =2X
Light Velocity =2X
Wavelength = Velocity/Frequency =1

Ok, that surprised me

In a period of 1 second (observer in same time flow as beam) the light goes the right distance. In our 1x time frame it goes 2X that far.

Self consistent, so far.

Beam originated in 2X space, wavelength was the same for that index of refraction.

Wavelength is the same in both frames?
 
Correction:( Index of refraction doesn't change. It is 1 in all frames.

Velocity divided by time, either the two effects cancel, velocity doubles, time is half. Or light is on the timeless plane, for practical purposes my gibberish was correct, it just wouldn't sail in a physics class.

Wow, is there an opening at Delphi, and I am not talking about the car parts manufacturer.
 
Last edited:
DeathDart said:
Set the Conditions:
Gravitational field Strength 6.674E-11m s^2
Estimated Time Flow = 2
Velocity= Near Zero
Inertial Mass= .5
Index of Refraction=.5 will follow Inertial Mass
Frequency Emitted =2X
Light Velocity =2X
Wavelength = Velocity/Frequency =1

Ok, that surprised me
Click to expand...
Ok that does not surprise anyone who has read any of your posts.

Set the Conditions:
Gravitational field Strength 6.674E-11m s^2
Estimated Time Flow = 127634376.876241257134 (a number picked at random)
Velocity= Near Zero
Inertial Mass= .5
Index of Refraction=.5 will follow Inertial Mass
Frequency Emitted !=2X
Light Velocity !=2X
Wavelength = Velocity/Frequency !=1
 
Belz... said:
Endless weight of certainty in high clouds.





Just about as useful.
Click to expand...


Ok, Galactic Velocity Curves, I change one number from a 1 to infinity, and I add an equation to determine why the flow of time is that way. Galactic Velocity Curve can now be predicted.

You look at Galactic Velocity Curves, and you create Dark Matter. After several hundred years of astronomy, we have not found any indications for Dark Matter locally.


Inflation and the Big Bang. Normal for empty space to act that way until the density shuts down the expansion.

So where was the Dark Matter during the Big Bang?


Supernova Remnant Brightening caused by a high velocity, low density mass, running into another low density mass. Somehow out all of these starting conditions we have a backwards traveling shockwave creating all the phenomena we see. This theory is worth it's weight in Hand Wavium.

How does an object create a backwards shock wave, its not running into a solid wall? One atom hits another a high speed, what is the probability it will reflect straight back?

Ok, we compress the material to increase its density. Except that from energy averaging, more material is in the original wave with the average velocity decreasing. Your compression is getting smeared across space.

Now I don't disagree that a high velocity shockwave (Pulse accelerated mass) will light up when it runs into higher density material, I don't think it accounts for all the effects.

Because increasing gravity slows time, as long as the isotope mass density doesn't change the gravitational conditions of the Time_Space it encounters, the isotope's half-life should decrease.

Something that speeds up the half-life decrease, is the kinetic energy shifting out of mass, and into velocity. With faster time, the inertial mass of the particle decreases. The increase in velocity (to conserve kinetic energy as inertial mass decreases), is the square root of the time flow.

I was calculating arrival times based on constant velocity, DUH.

As time goes faster, and faster, the particles velocity increases. Energy is conserved because its inertial mass has gone down. As it gets into faster time (weaker gravity) it moves into increasingly fast space at even higher velocities. It is a run away condition.

Low density, high temperature plasmas, with incredible isotope energy production. Linked by magnetic fields into structures that could act like particle accelerators. Particle accelerators that are on the scale of several light days across. Something that big, and that energetic, shouldn't have any problems generating cosmic rays.

Does my theory explain more of the observations?

Wow, crickets with glowing red eyes? That can't be good.
 
DeathDart: Why is the ICM radiation not blue shifted

DeathDart said:
Polymaths 0___Brain Damaged Savants 1​
Click to expand...
Actually: Science Many___Typical Internet Physics Crank 0
(And shouting just makes you look more like a crank that your posts already do).

The simple fact is that your idea has been shown to be wrong:
Reality Check said:
Astronomers frequently observe radiaiton from 'empty space', e.g. the X-rays emitted from the intracluster medium.
This radiation is not blue-shifted. Your idea predicts that it will be blue-shifted. Thus your idea is wrong.
Click to expand...

So rather than posting nonsense and insults, maybe you can answer the queston.
DeathDart: Why is the ICM radiation not blue shifted?
 
DeathDart said:
Supernova Remnant Brightening caused by a high velocity, low density mass, running into another low density mass. Somehow out all of these starting conditions we have a backwards traveling shockwave creating all the phenomena we see.
Click to expand...
There is no 'backwards traveling shockwave'.

The supernova has a sphere of out-going debris from the explosion. This sphere runs into the interstellar matter. This heats up the gas. It gets hot enough so that the radiation from this heating dominates the light caused by the excitation of the debris sphere from the supernova.
Before the SN images were supernova debris lit up by the supernova.
Now the SN images are of supernova remnants lit up by collisions with the interstellar medium.
New Supernova Remnant Lights Up
Most of a supernova's light comes from radioactive decay of elements created in the explosion. As a result, it fades over time. However, the debris from SN 1987A has begun to brighten, suggesting that a new power source is lighting it.
...
A supernova remnant consists of material ejected from an exploding star, as well as the interstellar material it sweeps up. The debris of SN 1987A is beginning to impact the surrounding ring, creating powerful shock waves that generate X-rays observed with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. Those X-rays are illuminating the supernova debris and shock heating is making it glow. The same process powers well-known supernova remnants in our galaxy like Cassiopeia A.
...
This research appears in a paper in the June 9, 2011 issue of Nature. The first author is Josefin Larsson (University of Stockholm).
Click to expand...

In case you get confused - we image the light from this sphere as a ring because our line of sight passes through more material at the edge of the sphere than the rest of the sphere.


DeathDart said:
Does my theory explain more of the observations?
Click to expand...
An easy question: You have no theory thus your theory does not explain any of the observations. You have a vague idea that is wrong (DeathDart: Why is the ICM radiation not blue shifted?).
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
There is no 'backwards traveling shockwave'.

The supernova has a sphere of out-going debris from the explosion. This sphere runs into the interstellar matter. This heats up the gas. It gets hot enough so that the radiation from this heating dominates the light caused by the excitation of the debris sphere from the supernova.
Before the SN images were supernova debris lit up by the supernova.
Now the SN images are of supernova remnants lit up by collisions with the interstellar medium.
New Supernova Remnant Lights Up


In case you get confused - we image the light from this sphere as a ring because our line of sight passes through more material at the edge of the sphere than the rest of the sphere.



An easy question: You have no theory thus your theory does not explain any of the observations. You have a vague idea that is wrong (DeathDart: Why is the ICM radiation not blue shifted?).
Click to expand...


In case you get confused - we image the light from this sphere as a ring because our line of sight passes through more material at the edge of the sphere than the rest of the sphere.

Yes, I understood it was a sphere. The other give away is the material in the center of the ring (the sphere walls on this side and the opposite side) were transparent until they started lighting up. You can see all kinds of turbulence now. The movies have the ring all wrong.

Velocity per Second/ Cycles per second = Wavelength. Double Velocity, Double time speed (Cycles per second) same wavelength.

The Doppler wavelength changes because the source is moving toward or away. The relativistic shift of high velocity objects is because the space around the relativistic object is still the same, the velocity and time for space is not changing with the object. So while time is slowing down for the object, the space around it is unaffected.

A low mass object and the Time_Space it is in, share the same properties.
Time is faster and the frequency produced by the atom is higher. The velocity of light has increased proportionally. No change in wavelength.

Time is not discontinuous. Gravitational field strengths don't make abrupt discontinuous shifts. So if gravity can't change abruptly, neither can time flow.

Light velocity (Massless) follows time flow. Time flow is 2X velocity is 2X wavelength stays the same.
 
At this point I can't say with high certainty what a relativistic object will do in Time_Space with a faster flow.

It appears to be mathematically identical for an object that is .99c at 1X to be 9.90c in 10X Time_Space. The Time Dilation and the fast Time_Space may cancel, leaving the object in a 1X time flow, at a 10X velocity.

The object (ship) must take advantage of the space and cannot create those conditions itself. If a (space ship) could create faster Time_Space around it, this would represent a warp field.

Since significant fast Time_Space only exists in low gravity environments, the ability to cancel gravitational fields would be significant. My personal opinion is that this is not possible, although I am hoping that I am wrong.
 
Reality Check said:
DeathDart: Why is the ICM radiation not blue shifted?)
Click to expand...

The fundamental property of wavelength is velocity/ frequency

Time_Space = 10x Frequency output is ten times higher, BUT that beam goes ten times farther in one second. The WAVELENGTH is constant in all Time_Spaces.

Now as that beam of light moves from 10X space to stronger gravity 9X space
both time and velocity are 9X. The wavelength in absolute distance (if there are any) terms is the same in all Time_Spaces.

If that atom is moving in any Time_Space, then relativity and Doppler effects apply when compensated for that Time_Space. A .1c object relativistic shift is independent of the Time_Space. You could watch a low mass, light emitting object, that had a velocity of .1c in 1X space as it traveled 2x, 3X, 4x, Time_Space. The relativistic shift would be constant. The only noticeable effect would be if it were traveling at right angles to you, at a known distance. You would observe that it is moving too quickly, because its angular position is changing too quickly. This would give you an absolute velocity of .3c, while the light emitted has a shift of only .1c. it is moving at .3c absolute, but it is in 3X Time_Space, the visible shift is only .1c.

Without knowing the gravitational strength that an object is moving through, or some other means of determining absolute speed, a relativistic or Doppler shift may not always give correct results.
 
I have found something that can be confusing.

Kinetic energy is conserved, but velocity ONLY increases at the square root of the time flow.

A relativistic shift is absolute in all frames. Because a relativistic shift is compared to the speed of light in that frame. It represents a ratio of kinetic energy to absolute energy E=mc^2 SQRT(1-(V^2/c^2)). It is constant in all frames.

I am too tired to figure out if Doppler effects can be separated from Relativistic effects, my brain is full.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom