Alternate Theory of Gravity (split from "Puzzling Results From CERN")

edd said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.2476
311 pages of people suggesting alternative gravities and getting their units right.
Click to expand...

How does one write the gravitational units of gravity? Does it include separate units of time dependent on where the field is present?:D

By logically separating inertial mass from gravitational mass, I may have gotten some breathing space. I am actually glad that Time Space apparently had nothing to do with the CERN result. That would have screwed up everything.

You have been helpful, or at least less condescending than some humans.:)
 
edd said:
DeathDart - you seem to be under the impression that only you and a few other mavericks find dark matter unsatisfying. You are not. Alternative theories are commonplace.

However, the serious contenders make physical sense. Your equations and ideas simply don't. If dark matter deserves to fail as an idea we will make it fail - you might not think it but there are good scientists working on the problem.
Click to expand...

Out here in the wilderness I was ignorant that there was a quiet, but uncomfortable crowd in gravitational physics. I knew of a few people like Milgrom MOND. And speaking honestly, my mind is not that good, my real time skills are barely sufficient for me to make it through the day without getting killed.

Also I do try the patience of the people arguing with me. I wish it was the first of my 1001 ideas that was any good, not the last one.:o
 
Fundamental Theorem of Gravitational Mass. The gravitational mass of the universe is constant.

The gravitational mass is not affected by velocity. If the gravitational mass was not constant, the universe would have gravitationally collapsed immediately after the Big Bang.

Time within a mass is constant.

The distance between the neutrino source and the detectors was correct. The velocity of the Neutrinos appeared to violate the speed of light, based upon the relativistically slowed clocks on the surface. Time was faster for the Neutrinos because the time within a mass is fixed, and unaffected by velocity.
 
Staying within relativity, and consistent within cosmological history, (Big Bang)

If the velocity at the beginning of the Big Bang had increased the gravitational mass, the Universe would have collapsed under this amplified cohesive force.

Gravitational mass does not increase with velocity, (or very little).

Time must be constant for gravitational mass.

In the CERN OPERA experiment the clocks were on the surface and under the influence of velocity and its relativistic affects.

The path of the Neutrinos was through the constant time flow of a mass.

Relativity produced the slower timing of the surface clocks. You cannot refute this.

You can still argue that time was also slowed within the planet. If you can explain why the Universe did not collapse because the gravitational mass was affected (increased) by velocity.

Neutrinos cannot go faster then light. Matter directly encounters Zeno's paradox. The closer it gets to the speed of light, the more inertial mass it has. Inertial mass is the result of a masses gravitational field interacting with the space it is passing through. It is a property external to the mass.

Inertial mass and gravitational mass are not the same.

One is a constant (gravitational mass) the other is dependent on velocity and the properties of the space it is passing through, (inertial mass).

The separation of inertial mass from gravitational mass is necessary to account for the galactic velocity curves without creating dark matter.
 
Reality Check said:
DeathDart, Can you understand that a difference of 10,0000 times is different?
Click to expand...

This is not a court of law.

If the facts do not support my arguments, I can change my arguments. Especially in the appeal process you are not allowed to change your arguments. Always create multiple forms of the arguments, in patent law this is called alternative embodiments.

Your argument needs to address the issue of constant gravitational mass existing within constant time.

You and the other arguments challenged me to reassess my arguments. Continuing to argue against my previously acknowledged flawed arguments is counterproductive.

Argue to the present embodiment of my arguments.
 
Reality Check said:
Then present the present embodiment of your arguments in some kind of coherent manner.
So far all we have seen is inchorent assertions about time doing stuff that you want it to do.
Click to expand...

Simple relativity says velocity will cause time to slow.

The clocks were on the surface, and they were running slow.

A speed of 2 million meters per second is enough to slow the surface clocks so that they would say that the neutrinos were traveling faster then the surface speed of light. Keep the beam on the surface and repeat. It will be slower.

Gravitational mass in the universe is constant.

Constant mass must exist in constant time.

The neutrinos were moving through the base time for matter.

This appears to be around 1.

The neutrinos traveled along a path that was in constant time, the mass of the Earth shielding the neutrinos from the relativistic effects of velocity.

If relativistic velocity effects did increase the gravitational mass of an object, this would trigger a runaway condition and the universe would collapse.

Inertial mass is a property of the space surrounding a mass, and is not constant.

The separation of inertial mass from gravitational mass is one of the conditions necessary for many alternate theories of gravity.
 
I am trying to find a form of field equations that I can work with, it got messy really fast.

This is only one of the alternate gravitational theories that the CERN OPERA experiment will give breathing room.

Time's origin is from space.
In empty space, the flow of time is infinite.
Matter and gravitational fields slow the flow of time in space.

The speed of light c is proportional to the flow of time (locally). Within a framework, matter cannot exceed the speed of light.

The speed of light is not constant.

The time flow near large masses groups around 1.

Mass has two independent properties, gravitational mass and inertial mass.

Within a sufficient mass, the flow of time is independent of external time and velocity.

Inertial mass is inversely proportional to the flow of time. Time speeds up and inertial mass goes down in weaker gravitational fields.

Inertial mass is relative to other mass. In the absence of a gravitational field, inertial mass does not exist.
 
It's not a theory. I think that the title of the thread should be changed.
 
DeathDart said:
Within a sufficient mass, the flow of time is independent of external time and velocity.
Click to expand...


What does this even mean? The universe is a mass, sufficient I think, and what we observe within that mass doesn't behave the way you claim.
 
jsfisher said:
What does this even mean? The universe is a mass, sufficient I think, and what we observe within that mass doesn't behave the way you claim.
Click to expand...

So the CERN Neutrino experiment was not the first?

How much mass did you look at?

What were the timing constraints and accuracy of your measurement?

Were you measuring the isotope decay rate? How did you pick up a 2.37e-3 % increase in isotopic decay?

At some mass, it appears that time becomes a default value 1(?) within a mass.

If with increasing velocity, time were to slow inside of a mass, then stars with high relativistic velocity should be dimmer than slower moving stars. If the star's core were immersed in slower time, its rate of nuclear conversion would slow down. Has anyone noticed this effect?
 
Sorry my bad.

A concentrated mass.

A single atom, say an isotope, will decay slower, at higher velocities.

If the CERN neutrinos were passing through a region of time that was not affected by relativistic velocity, what is the difference between these two examples?

At some mass increment, time is partially or totally local within the mass.

At high enough mass, the mass becomes (completely?) independent from relativistic effects.

This does not apply to the surface of the mass, since stars do show wavelengths consistent with the source atoms being in slower time.

Light is a surface effect, while the nuclear reactions that power the star are deep beneath the surface.

If time does affect the entire mass, then higher velocity stars would be dimmer because the rate of nuclear reactions would go down.

CERN OPERA was not looking for this, but it is logical. If velocity had increased the gravitational fields of the masses that coalesced after the big bang, the universe would have collapsed. This also gives some support to inertial mass being a property that is external to the mass.

The big bang also appears to have expanded into space that did not have a gravitational field present. Cosmological inflation is made possible by both the speed of light being nearly infinite and inertial mass being almost non-existent under these conditions.

Having time slow down within an increasing gravitational field explains why inflation ramped down.

The rules that drove inflation at the beginning of the universe are still present and in operation.
 
Last edited:
DeathDart said:
So the CERN Neutrino experiment was not the first?
Click to expand...

What are you off onto now? This has nothing to do with my post.

If with increasing velocity, time were to slow inside of a mass
Click to expand...

...which is precisely what has been observed so very many times. (For convenience, let's take the entire universe as our reference mass.)

...then stars with high relativistic velocity should be dimmer than slower moving stars. If the star's core were immersed in slower time, its rate of nuclear conversion would slow down. Has anyone noticed this effect?
Click to expand...

Since the antecedent is true and the consequent is false, it would be prudent for you to reconsider your reasoning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom