DeathDart
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2011
- Messages
- 1,251
Stars and Star Clusters
Placing time and mass within an analogy. The math is descriptive but fast and slow time are more difficult to visualize in our normal fixed context. Time is an analogous to the fulcrum point of a balance, with zero velocity, both arms of the balance are equal.
As velocity increases, time gets longer. The fulcrum point has moved in your direction, the arm with the mass is longer. The faster you go the shorter your arm of the balance becomes. The is equivalent to the inertial mass increasing.
Now I must make a point which seems logical (to me). As time slows down the inertial mass of the object increases, but its equivalent gravitational mass does not. This is similar to a charged particle in an accelerator. As its velocity increases, its charge remains the same. The force of gravitational attraction does not change with increasing inertial mass.
The separation of inertial mass from gravitational mass is why stars on the edges of galaxies and the star clusters orbiting galaxies galaxies are moving so fast. The force of gravitational attraction between the galaxy and stars (or star clusters) is the same as Newton or Einstein predict. The inertial mass is lower because they are in lower gravitational space which is equivalent to faster time. Faster time, less inertial mass.
To balance out the same amount of attraction, the stars must move faster to create enough force to oppose gravity.
What observation could prove that time is moving faster in a distant region of space?
Immediately after Super Nova Remnant 1987a exploded the brightness rapidly went down until it was mostly radioactive decay that was generating any energy. The energy output followed roughly the decay curve for a single major isotope for about the next 7-8 years. No surprises.
Then it started brightening, a lot, and the last I heard it was still increasing.
The standard model explanation is a collision between fast material from the supernova impacting slower material expelled about 20,000 years earlier.
A collision is a thermal process where energy gets transferred to an increasing mass and the overall temperature and energy spectra would be similar to black body except early on it would be predominately X-rays.
Two problems, some isotopes create energy that we cannot see from this distance except indirectly as X-rays from other unrelated atoms that were irradiated. So if the collision model is right the majority of the energy should be at thermal levels. Wrong, the majority of the X-Ray energy appears to be Non-Thermal.
More like the signature of radiative decay, then collision processes.
But they had seen, and tracked the decay rate decreasing?
The isotopes are entering into space where the gravitational field gradient is going down and the time gradient is going up. Time is speeding up, and the rate of radioactive decay is increasing.
This is what they are beating their heads against.
So inertial mass and gravitational mass are not the same thing. Partially explains Star and Cluster velocities as being inertial mass dependent.
The brightening of 1987a indicating that time and the rate of radioactive decay have increased with lower gravity. A direct (sort of) measurement of time away from any mass concentration but it still emits energy that we can see here.
Who the heck is that rhetorical nonsense aimed at, your ego? Bingo since I had to argue with people who couldn't see the problem for some thirty years. It was a little bit my fault since I had to overcome a problem with language. I had to learn to express myself better. Not shouting the response is also helpful. The guys in the white coats are even worse at physics than you people
Placing time and mass within an analogy. The math is descriptive but fast and slow time are more difficult to visualize in our normal fixed context. Time is an analogous to the fulcrum point of a balance, with zero velocity, both arms of the balance are equal.
As velocity increases, time gets longer. The fulcrum point has moved in your direction, the arm with the mass is longer. The faster you go the shorter your arm of the balance becomes. The is equivalent to the inertial mass increasing.
Now I must make a point which seems logical (to me). As time slows down the inertial mass of the object increases, but its equivalent gravitational mass does not. This is similar to a charged particle in an accelerator. As its velocity increases, its charge remains the same. The force of gravitational attraction does not change with increasing inertial mass.
The separation of inertial mass from gravitational mass is why stars on the edges of galaxies and the star clusters orbiting galaxies galaxies are moving so fast. The force of gravitational attraction between the galaxy and stars (or star clusters) is the same as Newton or Einstein predict. The inertial mass is lower because they are in lower gravitational space which is equivalent to faster time. Faster time, less inertial mass.
To balance out the same amount of attraction, the stars must move faster to create enough force to oppose gravity.
What observation could prove that time is moving faster in a distant region of space?
Immediately after Super Nova Remnant 1987a exploded the brightness rapidly went down until it was mostly radioactive decay that was generating any energy. The energy output followed roughly the decay curve for a single major isotope for about the next 7-8 years. No surprises.
Then it started brightening, a lot, and the last I heard it was still increasing.
The standard model explanation is a collision between fast material from the supernova impacting slower material expelled about 20,000 years earlier.
A collision is a thermal process where energy gets transferred to an increasing mass and the overall temperature and energy spectra would be similar to black body except early on it would be predominately X-rays.
Two problems, some isotopes create energy that we cannot see from this distance except indirectly as X-rays from other unrelated atoms that were irradiated. So if the collision model is right the majority of the energy should be at thermal levels. Wrong, the majority of the X-Ray energy appears to be Non-Thermal.
More like the signature of radiative decay, then collision processes.
But they had seen, and tracked the decay rate decreasing?
The isotopes are entering into space where the gravitational field gradient is going down and the time gradient is going up. Time is speeding up, and the rate of radioactive decay is increasing.
This is what they are beating their heads against.
So inertial mass and gravitational mass are not the same thing. Partially explains Star and Cluster velocities as being inertial mass dependent.
The brightening of 1987a indicating that time and the rate of radioactive decay have increased with lower gravity. A direct (sort of) measurement of time away from any mass concentration but it still emits energy that we can see here.
Who the heck is that rhetorical nonsense aimed at, your ego? Bingo since I had to argue with people who couldn't see the problem for some thirty years. It was a little bit my fault since I had to overcome a problem with language. I had to learn to express myself better. Not shouting the response is also helpful. The guys in the white coats are even worse at physics than you people
!) describe gravity. That is what they do. They answer the question of how mass and energy create gravitys. The results they calculate are whatever you want to know about gravity from sources of mass and energy.
