The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

You harp on the Lyman Tree, I harp on the Galactic Velocity Curves

Having the same velocity means that they have the same kinetic energy.

Why don't the stars change orbits a lot after even a minor external perturbation? Even with Dark Matter, these are not stable orbits.

I say that the same velocity does not indicate that the have the same kinetic energy.

If they had the same kinetic energy, nothing would prevent them from collapsing into a toroid structure. An orbit can be described by the kinetic energy, per unit mass, to maintain that orbit.

With increasing radius, AND DECREASING GRAVITY BELOW 6.674E-11m s^2 the flow of time appears to speed up.

Because they do not exist in the same Time_Space, the same velocity does not equate to the same kinetic energy.

I suggest the flow of time is FASTER for the outer stars, because of the much weaker gravitational fields that are found at the outer orbits. The inertial mass is directly divided by the Time Space 1+SQRT(gT2/g)

When the outer ones try to move in closer, their speed will drop as they enter slower time. The kinetic distribution of these flat velocity orbits, may closely follow the radial distribution found in linear time.
 
DeathDart said:
If I did say earlier that it was blue shifted, then I was wrong!
Click to expand...
Your idea predicts blue shifting for the simple reason that faster time = faster frequency = blue shift.
It does not matter whether you say this or not. It is your idea that says this. It also means that your idea is wrong because no such blue shift is observed from space that has less matter in it:
DeathDart: Why is the ICM radiation not blue shifted?
DeathDart: Why is Lyman-alpha light not blue shifted?
 
jsfisher said:
c.
Click to expand...

My god the right answer.

If gT2=6.674E-11m s^2

1+SQRT(gT2/g)

At an orbital radius where the gravitational field strength is less than 6.674E-11m s^2 what will the orbital velocity be, versus the velocity that is predicted by Newtonian physics ? Will the real velocity be higher or lower than the Newtonian prediction?

And the follow up question is....
 
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...

You are equipped with an atomic clock, a meter stick with a mirror at one end, and a laser. You will always find that light takes time t=2m/c=6.67*10-9s, as measured by your clock, to travel to down your meter stick, reflect off the mirror, and come back.

If a distant observer with an identical clock is watching all this through a telescope, and if you're in a different gravitational potential than the distant observer, the distant observer will time the two-way light travel time as faster (if they are below you in the gravity field) or slower (if they are above). By the same token, they will see your clock tick faster or slower than theirs. And again by the same token, light emitted by your laser will be blue or red shifted when it arrives at their location.
 
Reality Check said:
Obvous:
What is your equation for the galaxy velocity curves rather than the nonsense you have been posting?
Click to expand...

The Miyamoto equations don't seem to be nonsense but you can take them up with him, if he is still alive.

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

Take the output from the equation which will be g. Multiply by (g)*1+SQRT((gT2)/g)= gXt this is simpler than reducing the star mass.

SQRT(gXt*radius)= corrected velocity.

There are six zones of mass density, the last one on the velocity measurement appears to be in flux 13 to 14 kpc out. Possibly moving outward. Just keep the mass rational and don't try to match that point.
 
DeathDart said:
You can not argue ideas, because you just parroting someone. You don't even understand the arguments.
Click to expand...

There's no argument here. You're spouting unadulterated nonsense, and can't understand people when they tell you why it's nonsense. And there's no point in arguing ideas that can't even get the dimensions correct, because those ideas are obviously wrong because they're logically inconsistent.

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

You can measure g in lots of different units. However, none of the units you listed are units of acceleration.

The SI units for acceleration are m/s2.

Big G meters kg sec
Click to expand...

Nope.

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

Obviously nonsense. If you measure G in units with grams instead of kg, then it will be a factor of 1,000,000 times smaller, which would make your gT2 1,000,000 times smaller. So without even realizing it, you're claiming that there's something fundamental about the mass of 1 kilogram. But that's absurd. It's a completely arbitrary unit, based on nothing more than the whim of some Frenchmen fascinated by the number 10 (which has no fundamental significance either, it's just the number of fingers we happen to have evolved with). Of course, that's not the end of it either: you also dropped some dimensions of length, which then require that the meter also be fundamental, though it too is arbitrary. So your unit "conversion" is a joke from start to finish, justified only by your ignorance of units, dimensions, and their importance.
 
DeathDart said:
...snipped irrelevant stuff....
Click to expand...
You ignored the question: What is your equation for the galaxy velocity curves?

Your equation means that equation that you have for the galaxy curves that you used to generate the lists of numbers that you have been generating.

You do not have to display your ignorance about the paper Three-Diemsional Models for the Distribution of Mass in Galaxies where equation A1 on page 541 obviously does not give g:
  • g is an acceleration.
  • the equation returns the circular velocity.
 
Reality Check said:
You ignored the question: What is your equation for the galaxy velocity curves?

Your equation means that equation that you have for the galaxy curves that you used to generate the lists of numbers that you have been generating.

You do not have to display your ignorance about the paper Three-Diemsional Models for the Distribution of Mass in Galaxies where equation A1 on page 541 obviously does not give g:
  • g is an acceleration.
  • the equation returns the circular velocity.
Click to expand...

You are actually right.
I converted it back to g= V^2/R

then I applied (1+SQRT(gt2/g))*g=gXt
time corrected velocity =SQRT(gXt*R)

If you watch a graph of the time corrected velocity it will help you set the density parameters. Plot the original velocity to compare the changes. You will see that once the digression between the velocities begins to diverge, a small change early on 1-5 kpc is amplified.

It isn't hard to imagine a barred galaxies central mass rotating and the arms swinging in and out.



Enjoy.
 
So how many hours are left to burn up,
before my people (The Martians attack)? :)


This could have been a productive use of time.

Clueless...... Are you forced to get a lobotomy when you are promoted.
 
DeathDart said:
So how many hours are left to burn up,
before my people (The Martians attack)? :)


This could have been a productive use of time.

Clueless...... Are you forced to get a lobotomy when you are promoted.
Click to expand...
Have you realized yet that your idea is wrong:
DeathDart: Why is the ICM radiation not blue shifted?
DeathDart: Why is Lyman-alpha light not blue shifted?

This could have been a productive use of time.

Clueless...... Are you forced to get a lobotomy when you are promoted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom