The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

I am going to see if NASA's planetary programs could be fudging the numbers that would show local affects. And I am not saying they are lying, they are pragmatists and the planetary programs would be the best model they could generate.

It could be like the epicyles of earlier astronomy. A slight change in how gravity acts may give a clue if their model is actually two models. One they know about and the other one hidden.

Another trek through the thorn bushes of mathematics. I wish I could have kept my reptilian scales, they were nearly thorn proof:)

You can go "whack another mole" while I am gone.

Boring.
 
The point I am trying to make is that your idea predicts that all light from all objects will be blue shifted because at some point the light will pass through a low gravitational field. This is simple consequence of time running faster (an increase in frequency).

The ICM in galaxy clusters is from a long way away. Your idea predicts that the light from ICM is blue shifted. It is not.

So your idea is wrong unless you can answer:
DeathDart: Why is the ICM radiation not blue shifted?

There is an even nastier problem with it that I will get to as soon as you explain away this problem in an understandable way.


Now I get it. And I have an answer. Light has no mass.

My extensions of GR and the original Gr are mostly about mass.

I was flippant when I said that light was on the timeless plane. But it doesn't have any mass. And I apply the equations to mass, or inertial mass.

The other thing it does change, is the absolute velocity of light.

So when a particle in faster Time_Space generates the higher frequency photon, it is cancelled out by the expansion of velocity.

Now your argument is that light that is simply passing through faster Time_Space should become blue shifted. I will tentatively give this answer, because Light no longer has mass, faster Time_Space cannot affect it.

Mashuna, it was maul. Jaw click, fold ears over eyes:)
 
Bad wording

I should have said permanently affect it.

It can't retain 10X Time_Space velocity when it leaves that space, the same is true for any frequency. Against the background of absolute distance the wavelength always appears the same, the time flow of faster Time_Space and velocity expansion cancel, either that or light is unaffected.

It seems that light acts as an absolute, even while its velocity changes. The wavelength is always the same, as long as the source is not moving.
 
Now I get it. And I have an answer. Light has no mass.
...gibberish snipped...
Gibberish is not an answer to: DeathDart: Why is the ICM radiation not blue shifted?

And a couple of corrections for you:
In GR gravity is caused by both mass and energy. Light has energy.
You are not modifying GR. You have displayed no knowledge of GR. You have not your modification to the Einstein field equations. You have not even given us a modified Lagrangian of the Einstein-Hilbert action which is a usual first step in modifying GR.
What you are doing in indulging in fantasies.
 
Last edited:
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?

http://xkcd.com/676/
 
Gibberish is not an answer to: DeathDart: Why is the ICM radiation not blue shifted?

And a couple of corrections for you:
In GR gravity is caused by both mass and energy. Light has energy.
You are not modifying GR. You have displayed no knowledge of GR. You have not your modification to the Einstein field equations. You have not even given us a modified Lagrangian of the Einstein-Hilbert action which is a usual first step in modifying GR.
What you are doing in indulging in fantasies.

GR is concerned with Gravity. I can't modify the field equations because I don't understand them. But I don't see an issue with using the elements I do understand and modifying them to explain the Galactic Velocity curves.

The reason I have some confidence, is that the solution is a constant. It doesn't change from problem to problem. Setting the densities for the mass models for galaxies, I could be setting an irrational model. I can get numbers from the model but I am not sure if the parameters I set are rational. I guess I need to find a solution using the same equations and see what the professionals density profiles look like. The problem there, is they tend to add dark matter to get the correct curve.

The closer I look at my potential solution, I see subtle issues which I haven't any clear answers. Also if I did understand the field equations I would have to know (in detail) the difference between what it is now, to what I need to change it to.

What I need to do is stop and think, I am mistaking action for progress. DUH
 
GR is concerned with Gravity. I can't modify the field equations because I don't understand them. But I don't see an issue with using the elements I do understand and modifying them to explain the Galactic Velocity curves.
You cannot say that you are modifying GR if you do not understand it.
You cannot just pick bits out of it. It is a cohesive scientific theory, not a box of sweets :)!

And you have still not explained the Galactic Velocity curves.

The reason I have some confidence, is that the solution is a constant.
Your solution should be an equation (not a constant) that gives the galaxy rotation curve for any galaxy.

Your idea is wrong in any case: DeathDart: Why is the ICM radiation not blue shifted?
 
The Universe is disparate combination of Matter and Space.
The geometry and properties of space diverge along two formulations according to whether matter or space is dominant. When matter is dominant Space Time GR is correct. When Time Space is dominant GR fails to correctly predict observations in some instances. One possible cause for this error appears to be the assumption that time is limited to a maximum speed of 1.

Matter, energy, and gravity are attributes of matter.

Time is an attribute of space.

Space is not an inactive container for matter, it appears to be the origin of time and is an independent force in the Universe.

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

The rules change in space with weak gravitational fields and low matter densities where the properties of space and time dominate. I call space and time dominated regions, Time Space.

1. In empty space, time is flowing at an infinite speed.
A. The origin of time, is space.

B. The addition of any mass to infinitely flowing Time Space, changes the time flow to some value less than infinity.

C. The Big Bang was expanding into empty space, the expansion velocities were normal, that is how the infinite time of empty space reacts until matter density slows the expansion.

D. The inertial mass of a moving object is directly divided by the Time Space flow in which it is immersed. The flat galactic velocity curve is potentially caused by stars farther out being in weaker gravity fields, which translates into 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. Inertial mass may be dependent on the local gravitational strength, while gravitational attraction is still Newtonian.

E. Conservation of energy is maintained. If a moving mass enters into a time space where the flow increases by 2X, the inertial mass is reduced by 1/2 and the velocity increases by the square root of 2.


2. In Time Space, light has different properties than in Space Time, except that the LOCAL velocity of light remains the velocity limit for all mass.

A. In Time Space, the velocity of light is dependent on Time Space flow.

B. The wavelength of light is a constant in all Time Space dominated regions. Time space does not permanently change the light that passes through it.

C. Relativistic shifts and velocities are maintained through all Time Space flows. Relativistic shifts are ratios of kinetic energy to absolute energy E=mc^2. Light remains the velocity limit for all Time Space flows, relativistic shifts and velocities are maintained.

D. Because of B and C above, Time Space effects are difficult to see. Velocity that when measured becomes anomalous when compared with the red or blue shifts. Small masses like the nebular material ejected into Supernova Remnants where fresh isotopes can enter fast flow Time Space and self illuminate, because of increasing radioactive decay through reduced half-life.

3. Matter and gravity slow the flow of Time Space.
A. When there is enough matter and gravity present, then matter dominates, GR and relativity, as presently constituted, are correct.

They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder. :) The Princess Bride
 
Do you want me to take my universe and go home?:)

Not necessarily but it would be useful if you took the time to understand the theories which seem to describe this one, the evidence and maths which underpins them before you start proposing hand-wavy alternatives with no evidential or mathematical backup.

All of course IMO
 
We can agree that we don't think alike. I tend to diverge and use non sequturs.

My viewpoint might even seem cartoonish.

About your use of the word delusional:
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. The Princess Bride

Delusional means that you are seeing things as real, that aren't there. And you certainly fit the bill.

And thanks for not addressing anything.
 
Make up your mind.

A. In Time Space, the velocity of light is dependent on Time Space flow.

C. Relativistic shifts and velocities are maintained through all Time Space flows.


Light has a velocity that is multiplied by the flow of Time Space.

1-F. A mass that has a relativistic velocity will maintain its relativistic velocity (relative to the speed of light) as light's velocity changes with different Time Space.

2-C. Relativistic shifts and velocities are maintained through all Time Space flows. Relativistic shifts are ratios of kinetic energy to absolute energy E=mc^2. Local Light velocity remains the limit in all Time Space flows. Relativistic shifts for masses are maintained by keeping the ratio of mass velocity to light velocity constant.
 
1. Why do you think General Relativity needs to be added to?

2. Why do you think you are qualified to do so?
 
I begin understand at least one reason why I am having a problem communicating this idea.

It actually seems like there are two slightly different universes coexisting, (or are glued together with Elmer's):)

To everyone with physics training, it seems that I am arbitrarily changing the rules, without supplying a reason. I can see it in my head, but now I realize you don't. To you I am describing two completely different animals, so the whole concept is a non sequitur.

To you, I am really describing two separate universes.

On the upper side where mass and gravity dominate, the rules work one way.
Light speed is fixed and frequency is variable.

On the lower side where space and time dominate, the rules are still there but the parameters are reversed.
Light velocity is variable, and frequency is fixed.

The hobgoblin of consistency raises its ugly head.
 
1. Why do you think General Relativity needs to be added to?

2. Why do you think you are qualified to do so?

I opened the door to the attic (crash ththupp, thump tong), wrong, to the basement.

I am trying to get you to see what I am seeing, and no you don't have to break the law to do it.

Now I see why you couldn't find it. I thought I was just changing a fixed constant 1, to infinity for time flow. This creates a discontinuity, though not quite as bad, as an impassable singularity.

Uh, I don't think I could a very good job of changing the equations. If I write the equations wrong, the universe could end like in the 9 Billion Names of God by Arthur C. Clarke :eek:

So I need to find someone who could understand what I am seeing and translate it to the equations correctly. Once trained physicists see what I am seeing, they will leave me in the dust (which is better than mud):)

It could begin a conceptual land rush in physics, as all these new territories open up. That is one of the reasons that I was against dark matter, it didn't lead anywhere.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom