• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Puzzling results from CERN

Reality Check said:
Asserting that this will account for dark matter is dumb since
  1. There is the other evidence and
  2. You have no idea how GR will change. It may produce better evidence for dark matter :jaw-dropp!
Click to expand...

It may even give more obvious clues as to what dark matter actually is.

Any change to GR will probably just change the measured distribution of dark matter.
Click to expand...


And there might be a clue right there :).
 
Calculating Galactic Velocity Profiles With Varying Time

Galactic Rotation Curves

3.1 Time flow increases with decreasing gravity. Using the GDT Gravitationally Dependent Time equation with a single central mass. The GDT Equation for determining the flow of Time= 1+(SQRT(gt2/g))= Time Flow gt2 = 6.674E-11 m^2 sec-1

Using just a single mass at the center, the velocity decreases in a Newtonian fashion, plateaus or levels out for a while then begins to increase. With the mass distributed across a circular plane it will match the velocity profile found in galaxies.

The velocity matches except for the spiral arms. Because a slight change in gravitational field (like the rotation of a central bar) can cause the arms, to swing in or out. The arms don't rotate with core, they are an illusion of time delay and the sensitivity of the material away from the outer core to slight changes in core gravity. If you try to fit the mass distribution of a galaxy this will become readily apparent. The velocity of the arms moving outward or inward will complicate mass distribution in the model.

This sensitivity to slight changes in the central core to large changes in structure seems to cinch the argument that this is the correct equation. It explains both the velocity and the nature of the spiral arms.
 
DeathDart said:
Near total internal reflection at the edges.
Click to expand...

Nnnnno. What makes you say that? The cartoon illustration in this two-paragraph pop science article? No.

This is an abrupt dielectric boundary effect caused by either matter or a gravitational flux field (not a static gravitational field).
Click to expand...

Nnnnnnooooooo. You don't even know what a "gravitational flux field" is, you're just stringing words together. Lensing is explicitly inconsistent with the hypothesis that it's caused directly by matter, like a cloud of gas refracting light---it's dispersionless, among other things.

Without an abrupt change in gravitational space the observed effect is not possible for gravity.
Click to expand...

Nope. Seriously, what do you think astronomers do? The effect is perfectly consistent with gravity, as confirmed a thousand times over by people who actually know the laws of gravity and light and who apply that knowledge to the data. I mean it: What do you think astronomers have been doing for the past 40 years?[/I]? You think they're sitting around not thinking about how the image gets formed?
 
3.3 You use the same erroneous equation to create an excuse for creating dark matter which is not necessary to explain galactic velocity cures. Gravity affects time much more than GR recognizes. Gravitational lensing may be more like time lensing. Time lensing might be sensitive to the frequency of light. Some of the images could represent a massive gravitational change (supernova or massive black hole) propagating through space.

Even at several times the speed of light (compared to our local space) at these scales, the expanding wave of gravity will appear to be fixed. Some of the pictures appear to show the expansion of more than a single sphere, some of them look like a collection of soap bubbles expanding. Unusual, more like a dynamic gravity wave diffracting light, but not that good of an argument for dark matter.
 
3.4 Cosmic Microwave background. Dark Matter is taking credit for that, I thought it was the Big Bang?

* 3.5 Sky surveys and baryon acoustic oscillations Not a clue how this may apply to dark matter.

3.6 Type Ia supernovae distance measurements. I believe they are referring to using these as the standard candles of astronomy. This type of supernova has a certain time signature and is supposed to be constrained (by theory) to a certain range of energy output. The energy output along with the expansion of the supernova nebula is used to estimate the distance. A problem occurs here.

Looking at the current velocities of visible structures from older nebulae and reversing them to obtain the detonation time, it comes up short. The expansion velocity of the nebulae of Supernovae has increased over time. I argue that this expansion will become visible for 1987a as it grows older. As the velocity of expansion increases the light will shift to lower energies (red shift) this is similar to the red shift of relativistic objects. The velocity of c will increase as the flow of time increases. The flow of time can increase because the gravitational field strength that the nebulae encounters has decreased.

Not only do I suggest that 1987a nebula's expansion velocity will increase (at the square root of time), the rate of radioactive decay of its isotopes will also increase. The brightness of 1987a's ring and blobs may not be from collision velocities, but may be partially powered from the increased rate of radioactive decay that results from faster flowing time.
 
3.8 Structure Formation

The leading edge of material from the Big Bang was encountering zero inertia so it could expand very rapidly. Big Bang inflation gets a big helping hand from GDT Gravitationally Dependent Time.

Why do galaxies become flat?
Gravitational induction produces a bias against globular clusters. Planar (flat) galaxies argue for the existence of gravitational induction. Once a slight mass imbalance in a particular orbit begins (in a globular cluster or a galaxy with random orientation of bee swarm orbits) the gravitational induction field will act to eject mass that is in opposition.

In accretion disks it appears that some form of the gravitational induction field, transforms rotational energy to linear energy.

(I am guessing on this part)
It also seems that there are two counter rotating semi hemispheres on either side of the main accretion disk. Oppositely spiraling matter is funneled toward the protostar at the middle of both. If the protostar doesn't capture the material, it drops through to the oppositely spinning semi-hemisphere.

The spin of the mass which wasn't captured is now in the axis of the oppositely spinning semi-hemisphere which will accelerate (and collimate) the mass along the common central axis.

Like magnetic induction, a fixed strength gravitational induction field has very little effect on a non-moving mass (the motion of a charged particle in an electromagnets field is the equivalent effect ).

In electromagnetic induction the force on the electromagnet wants to shorten the y axis and to increase the inner radius. A donut that gets flatter with an increasing inner radius. Single coil electromagnets (high current) will distort in this fashion.

Gravitational induction is very similar. Two masses traveling in the same direction, attract. Two masses traveling in opposite directions, repel.

Two masses traveling at 180 degrees separation in a circle will repel each other across the axis of the circle. A mass that is circling in the opposite direction (like the mass that dropped through from the other disk), is opposed by both masses traveling in the circle. This force is applied as a compression at the plane of the two masses. As it passes through the plane of the two masses, the force is no longer canceling vectors and the mass begins to accelerate in a linear motion away from the proto-star. A lot of its rotational motion of the mass that wasn't collected by the protostar has been transformed to mass with linear motion.

Converting rotational energy of an orbiting mass, to mass moving in a linear fashion. Although it is now traveling at right angles to its original path.
 
DeathDart said:
3.4 Cosmic Microwave background. Dark Matter is taking credit for that, I thought it was the Big Bang?
Click to expand...
Read: 3.4 Cosmic Microwave background

DeathDart said:
* 3.5 Sky surveys and baryon acoustic oscillations Not a clue how this may apply to dark matter.
Click to expand...
Read: 3.5 Sky surveys and baryon acoustic oscillations

DeathDart said:
3.6 Type Ia supernovae distance measurements.
...gibberish...
Click to expand...
Read: 3.6 Type Ia supernovae distance measurements
 
Reality Check said:
The properties of gravitational waves are well understood. We know that they have nothing to do with dark matter. They do not cause gravitational lensing.
Click to expand...

Gravity waves are so well understood that they haven't bothered to detect them, or can't detect them. 80 years of ********.
 
Reality Check said:
And you have forgotten to read: 3.7 Lyman-alpha forest
Click to expand...

Is it a quote from Dark Matter scripture, because is sure doesn't seem to be relevant to anything. It appears that an object in faster time will experience a slight shift to the red as its velocity does not increase as fast as light.

By itself Lyman-alpha_forest it is neutral, either dark matter or GDT can account for it.

And if you want to say something proves the existence of dark matter show the ******* math. Show the gravitational model. No appeals to authority. And is gibberish, the biggest word in your dictionary?

One change unifies several problems and solves them. Dark Matter allows you to predict, what? It is an answer which leads no where.

Does dark matter explain why nebula expansion velocities increase over time.

Does dark matter really answer anything? Will it tell you why 1987a will expand more quickly as it gets older?

What is the closest observation other than the galactic velocity curves which (I can also predict) that supports the existence of Dark Matter. What, you don't have anything closer?

Can Dark Matter explain the inflation after the Big Bang?

Can it explain where it was last night. or the night before , or where it is in this solar system?

The first problem you have is to prove is the existence dark matter. Inferring from faulty computation, which has shown itself to be further removed from reality with each new observation, is dogma, not science.
 
And yes there are a lot of idiots on this planet. But the probability that all 169(?) authors of the CERN paper were idiots, would be statistically astronomical.

Speaking of statistics, what is the odds for the next planetary bombardment by a swarm of asteroids or comets?

30-50 % of the people reading this are probably sitting above (or in) an impact crater that is under 370 million years old. Oil money hid the geology of Impact Craters with the help of (professional) scientists. If it looks like a crater on Google Earth there is a good chance it is. Follow the earthquakes or the white rabbit.

Do you know the difference between the Catholic Church, that persecuted Galileo in the middle ages, and the current Priests of Dark Matter? The Catholic church knew it was wrong, but a bureaucracy must defend itself. How many people advanced through the scientific bureaucracy with papers written supporting Dark Matter? It was easy no evidence and no predictions, what could go wrong?

Both the geologists who hid a deadly threat to humanity and the Dark Matter (Scientists? hah ) who like weeds could crowd out the productive minds had one thing in common?
 
DeathDart said:
Gravity waves are so well understood that they haven't bothered to detect them, or can't detect them. 80 years of ********.
Click to expand...
Your ignorance is showing, DeathDart.
Gravity waves have been indirectly detected.
There are experiments bothering to try to detect them directly.
Gravity waves are so weak and caused by relatively rare events. When experiments such a LIGO started it was hoped that such an event would happen close enough to us that it could be detected with a decade or so of observations. That was not the case. The upgraded and new experiments have a better chace od detecting gravitaional waves.

80 years of ******** good science.


And if gravity waves do not exist then your fantasy is even more debunked :jaw-dropp !
 
DeathDart said:
Is it a quote from Dark Matter scripture, ...gibberish snipped....
Click to expand...
3.7 Lyman-alpha forest is part of the evidence for dark matter.
I disagree with the formating of the Wikipedia article though. It should be something like:
Dark matter exists because many observations give evidence that it exists:

3 Observational evidence
 
Last edited:
DeathDart said:
And yes there are a lot of idiots on this planet. But the probability that all 169(?) authors of the CERN paper were idiots, would be statistically astronomical.
...usual crackpot. Galileo rantr snipped...
Click to expand...
And yes you are the only one in the thread calling the authors of the CERN paper idiots.
They are not. No one here (except you now) has said that they are.

They published the results of their experiment because they had results to publish! This is what scientists do.
 
Deathdart, I've probably read 400 scientific papers about dark matter in the categories RC has listed. How many have you read?

When I read these papers, I find them chock-full of predictions, confirmations, cross-checks, and honest statements of uncertainty or model-dependence, when present. What do you find? Can you give specific examples? (I'm talking about science papers, not pop-science articles which try to summarize those papers.)

I've also read probably 30-40 articles on the experimental testing of GR. How many have you read?

When I read those papers, I see that they explicitly look for alternatives to GR---like the alternatives you seem to think you're advocating. Do you not see that search-for-alternatives in the science papers you've read? Why not? Can you give examples?

When I read those papers, I also see that their experimental data has always, always, always agreed with normal GR, and disagreed with every alternative it was sensitive to. (OPERA is the only exception I know of, and it's a very new result that has not been crosschecked thoroughly enough yet.) Can you cite a scientific paper that experimentally found a problem with GR, or found a better fit to a non-GR theory?

Of course no experiment can test everything at once. I imagine this is what tempts you to say "they should try to test my theory", as though they haven't yet done so. On the other hand, many experiments have tested many things, and they've really covered the GR-alternatives space quite completely. The most obvious expression of variants-on-GR, the PPN formalism, has had its parameters covered exhaustively by one test or another. You seem to think that your alternative has not been checked by these tests. What makes you say that? How much time have you spent checking whether your pet theory has been covered by one of them? Can you give us a quick survey of the PPN parameters, the literature of attempts to measure them, and show where your "time" theory fits, exactly?
 
Last edited:
Actually I was saying that the authors of the CERN study were showing unusual integrity by admitting they were stumped. And I don't know too many experimentalist who would admit defeat until they had exhausted all the conventional possibilities. One interpretation that I won't accept is that the neutrinos were moving faster than light.

I have a hard time reading drivel. Assumptions piled on possibilities is what a new field should look like. Dark Matter is present when there are velocity anomalies and absent when everything is by the book. Thirty years of mathematical incantations haven't made it real.

It is always remote, over there, unlike this keyboard I am typing on. It doesn't pop into particle accelerators and mess them up. It has not been witnessed in the solar system. The only thing inferring its existence is bad math. Correct the math by making time dependent on the gravitational field strength.

Because of Lorentz Invariance the only visible effect of GDT at extreme distances is a slight shift to the red. Maybe its your tree forest thingy.

Measurement of nebula over long periods of time have indicated an increase in expansion velocity. This can be directly interpreted as the particles making up the nebula increasing in velocity. My explanation for this observation that is that time has sped up, as the particles inertial mass has also decreased (inversely proportional to time). Velocity then increases to maintain conservation. Time flow increased because of weaker gravity with increasing distance.

The same can be said of the velocity of stars on the fringes of galaxies. Time goes up INERTIAL mass goes down. Gravitational mass or attraction remains the same and the star must move faster to produce the force to balance gravity. If it moved in closer, time slows down, and inertial mass increases. This makes the orbits very sensitive to small changes in the radial gravitational field profile of galaxies. I.E. spiral arms.

And Nebula seem to be visible and energetic long after their energy sources should have been used up. Yes, the good old backward traveling shock wave. Yawn! Statistically inelastic recoil the rebound energy is (at best) a few percent of the of the original velocity and energy. Which is turned back against itself.
This is a logical knot because they are trying to make the math match the observation. To me it looks pretty desperate.

How about time speeding up, and the rate of radioactive decay speeding up with it. It consumes the energy in the isotopes at a faster rate. This may be relevant to nucleosynthesis and how Super Nova Remnants SNR's can generate cosmic rays. If the SNR's existed only in normal time, the SNR's should go cold, pretty quick.

Then again if high energy X-Rays are more common than thermal ones that would point to radioactivity and not collision as their primary energy source. I believe that is also observed.

Time speeding up is impossible.
Time slowing down was impossible, before relativity.
 
That's pretty much the non-answer I expected. You decided to reject mainstream astrophysics, and you've got an elaborate daydream world in which you're successfully rejecting mainstream astrophysics, and you want to keep talking about that world. Fine, whatever floats your boat. I'll stay out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom