The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

DeathDart said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry DD, but I simply can't figure out what you mean by "Light has a velocity that is multiplied by the flow of Time Space" and, at the same time, "Relativistic...velocities are maintained through all Time Space flows".

This is the problem with using words. Until you express your idea in equations, it's useless.

If I ignore some of the inconsistencies in what you're saying, it sounds like you want your theory to make a prediction for the gravitational potential that differs from GR's in the very low-mass density limit. In particular, you want it to go to infinity when there is no matter. I gave you some equations that have that property. But if that (or anything similar) is your theory, it's ruled out by the effect we've been trying to explain to you. If that's not your theory, then I have no idea what it is.
 
Last edited:
DeathDart: Why is Lyman-alpha light not blue shifted

DeathDart said:
1. In empty space, time is flowing at an infinite speed.
..nonsense snipped...
Click to expand...
The fact that the universe tells us that this does not happen means that your idea is wrong. Continued belief in it makes it into a delusion, not an idea.
The lack of blue shifted light from the ICM is one reason why it is wrong:
DeathDart: Why is the ICM radiation not blue shifted?

Another reason is "the Lyman-alpha transition of the neutral hydrogen in the spectra of distant galaxies and quasars" (see Lyman-alpha forest which allows the mapping of neutral hydrogen in the 'empty space' between galaxies in the universe)
 
Belz... said:
What you are seeing is not objective and therefore cannot be seen by others here without powerful hallucinogens.
Click to expand...

Wow, you are one of those people with the mental discipline to direct the cognitive effects of hallucinogens. I thought that ability took decades of practice, to achieve full control?
 
godless dave said:
What makes you think that what you are seeing corresponds to reality?
Click to expand...

What I see is interesting and seems cohesive, I haven't detected any significant contradictions. It could represent reality, but I won't call it real until I find proof. It is a good story until then.

It doesn't have any stresses from conceptual misalignment's, It is not like the mathematical proof that you would understand. Your techniques work for most people, I did not have access to, or was too lazy to learn your techniques.

My technique is a lot messier (and unreliable) and most of the time the best answer is indeterminate.The messiness and ambiguity drives most people crazy.
 
Think it's worth pointing out again you can't use Ly-a alone to prove DeathDart wrong. Also you can only use part of the ICM emission perhaps, and then I suspect not terribly accurately.

But equally it's worth pointing out that there's plenty of other sets of lines you can use to cause DD's ideas terminal difficulties.
 
Repeat

To correct the velocity for Time_Space you need to model the Mass. The Miyamoto equation seems to work well.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1975PASJ...27..533M
Page 541 equation A1
*
Expand to 6 elements from the two shown. Example Curve M33
http://www.hep.shef.ac.uk/research/dm/intro.php
*
The correction is applied to the Mass or g, not the velocity.
1+SQRT((gT2)/g) = time correction applied to mass or g.
*
kpc=3.08609E19
Sol=1.989E30
G=6.67428E-11 m^3** kg^-1* s^2
*
a1=0.0*kpc
b1=1.2*kpc
M1=1.45E9*Sol
*
a2=1.3*kpc
b2=2.5*kpc
M2=6.1E9*Sol
*
a3=2.6*kpc
b3=5.6*kpc
M3=6.5E9*Sol
*
a4=5.7*kpc
b4=10.7*kpc
M4=5.6E9*Sol
*
a5=10.8*kpc
b5=12.9*kpc
M5=2.9E9*Sol
*
a6=13.0*kpc
b6=15.0*kpc
M6=1.6E9*Sol
*
The time correction formula (a guess that works so far)
1+SQRT((gT2)/g) = Flow of time
gT2 = 6.674E-11 m/s
g is the calculated gravitational field strength at this distance (radius) from the center. The equation will give you the value for a particular R

The uncorrected velocity is calculated SQRT(radius in meters *gravitational field strength (g))

I find it simpler to multiply g rather than dividing the inertial mass of the orbiting star, multiply g * (1+(SQRT(G/g))) =gx

The corrected velocity is calculated SQRT(radius in meters *(gx))
 
Reality Check said:
Then you have not been reading. Yoiur idea is ruled out by the universe:
(I will go through evey emission of light of all of the atoms if you want!)
Click to expand...


I am getting tempted to call this regime the Underverse.
Time Space is defined by the simple equation (1+(SQRT(G/g)))=Xt
Time space is outlined by the gradient of gravity.


Velocity of light increases = c*Xt
Frequency of source =w*Xt
Wavelength =(c*Xt)/(w*Xt)
Wavelength is maintained in Time Space.
Relativistic Shifts are maintained in Time Space.
Why should it be blue shifted?

How would hyper accelerated light jump into our Time Space?

The increase or decrease of Time Space exactly follows the gravity gradient. No abrupt changes are possible.
 
godless dave said:
Then what good is it?
Click to expand...

It is what I have, it probably works better than the jawbone of an ass.

Plus your system trapped you. 80+ years since the velocity curve anomaly came out. You were digging a hole using dark matter that you would never get out of.
 
DeathDart said:
I am getting tempted to call this regime the Underverse.
Time Space is defined by the simple equation (1+(SQRT(G/g)))=Xt
Click to expand...

That equation makes no sense. G and g have different units, so you cannot add their ratio to 1. Is "Xt" is supposed to be the time multiplier?

Velocity of light increases = c*Xt
Frequency of source =w*Xt
Wavelength =(c*Xt)/(w*Xt)
Wavelength is maintained in Time Space.
Relativistic Shifts are maintained in Time Space.
Why should it be blue shifted?
Click to expand...

There are two possibilities. One is, you've simply adopted a system of units that varies from place to place. If so, your theory has no effect on galactic rotation curves or anything else - it's just a stupid system of units. When I look through a telescope at an empty region, things are moving the same speed there that they are on earth.

The other option is that time really is running faster in empty regions than it is on earth. By definition, that means that if I look through a telescope into such a region, I see things moving fast. Clocks are ticking faster. Light is moving faster. People are aging faster. That automatically means that the light I receive from atoms in that region is at higher frequency than light emitted by the same kind of atoms on earth, because that frequency IS a clock tick rate.

I'm (probably foolishly) optimistic that you're eventually going to understand this. Do you get it yet?
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
That equation makes no sense. G and g have different units, so you cannot add their ratio to 1.
Click to expand...

I called him out on that mistake ages ago. He simply changed the units (but kept the numerical value), called it a new constant, and kept going. The fact that it makes no sense doesn't really seem to matter to him.
 
DeathDart: Why is Lyman-alpha light not blue shifted

DeathDart said:
I am getting tempted to call this regime the Underverse.
...even more gibberish snipped...
Click to expand...
DeathDart: Why is the ICM radiation not blue shifted?
DeathDart: Why is Lyman-alpha light not blue shifted?
N.B. the expansion of the universe means that measurements of the Lyman-alpha transition are redshifted as you look further away.
So the question should rather be:
Why do the measurements of the Lyman-alpha transition in neutral hydrogen agree with the expansion of the universe as measured by other techniques when your idea predicts that they should not agree.
​
But that does not fit in the title line!
 
Reality Check said:
DeathDart: Why is the ICM radiation not blue shifted?
DeathDart: Why is Lyman-alpha light not blue shifted?
N.B. the expansion of the universe means that measurements of the Lyman-alpha transition are redshifted as you look further away.
So the question should rather be:
Why do the measurements of the Lyman-alpha transition in neutral hydrogen agree with the expansion of the universe as measured by other techniques when your idea predicts that they should not agree.
​
But that does not fit in the title line!
Click to expand...

If I did say earlier that it was blue shifted, then I was wrong!

The red shift or the relativistic shifts are due to motion. It is still the same in all frameworks or Time Spaces

And when I began, I thought this was an extension of relativity. It is starting to look like a different neighborhood.
 
Ziggurat said:
I called him out on that mistake ages ago. He simply changed the units (but kept the numerical value), called it a new constant, and kept going. The fact that it makes no sense doesn't really seem to matter to him.
Click to expand...

You can not argue ideas, because you just parroting someone. You don't even understand the arguments.

Gravity little g is in what units, troy ounces , stones, meters per second acceleration?

Big G meters kg sec If mass is not involved it drops off.
gT2=6.674E-11m s^2
 
DeathDart said:
Gravity little g is in what units, troy ounces , stones, meters per second acceleration?

Big G meters kg sec If mass is not involved it drops off.
gT2=6.674E-11m s^2
Click to expand...

OK, let's add dimensional analysis to the list of topics you haven't a clue about.

If someone told you "the speed of light is one gram", what would you think?
 
Is the velocity of light fixed in all gravitational fields regardless of their strength? Disregard high intensity gravitational fields and concentrate on regions with fields weaker than 6.674E-11 m s^2.

What is the velocity of light in these regions?
 
sol invictus said:
OK, let's add dimensional analysis to the list of topics you haven't a clue about.

If someone told you "the speed of light is one gram", what would you think?
Click to expand...

Twelve pages later, DeathDart is... well.. still not on the same page.
 
DeathDart said:
Is the velocity of light fixed in all gravitational fields regardless of their strength? Disregard high intensity gravitational fields and concentrate on regions with fields weaker than 6.674E-11 m s^2.

What is the velocity of light in these regions?
Click to expand...


c.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom