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

[DeathDart]

And no, I will not take the entire universe as an example.

The effects are local.

In all galaxies, all of the stars obey the conservation of energy, and the profile of energy distribution is the same.

To you this cannot be true. The stars for some radial interval from the center have nearly the same velocities.

If they had identical energies, why don't they collapse in into a single ring?

Dark matter won't help you, gravitationally flat space cannot keep masses from collapsing into a common ring. Dark Matter flattens space.

 

[jsfisher]

And no, I will not take the entire universe as an example.

Really? Why no? How big a mass is needed before your, um, theory breaks down? More than the Earth, apparently, but less than the entire universe.

The effects are local.

Oh, like inside a particle accelerator? Ok, let's use a particle accelerator as the reference mass, one in which time dilation has been observed for decaying particles at high velocity.

Would that be acceptable, or will you now move the goal posts yet again because the mass is too small and the effects you describe are more global?

 

[DeathDart]

Are you trying to garble my statements?

The CERN experiment showed that the Earth had shielded the neutrino beam from the relativistic affects of velocity. The Earth was an adequate mass to shield the effects of (2M meters per second?) of velocity that the Earth is apparently traveling through space with.

 

[Mashuna]

Are you trying to garble my statements?

How could anyone tell the difference?

 

[DeathDart]

How could anyone tell the difference?

Most can't, but a lot of it is just throwing up a new idea and watching it get blasted to smithereens. Whoops, time for a new idea.

 

[DeathDart]

The energy distribution is still the same from the core to the outer edges of the galaxy. If it wasn't, then it would collapse.

Inertial mass is a property of the space you are in. With a decreasing gravitational field, the inertial mass of an object decreases. The same velocity does not equal the same amount of energy. To maintain energy conservation, I tied the reduced gravitational field, to the faster flow of time. The flow of time is (nearly?) infinite in empty space. Binding the two together seems to work and appears to be consistent. A lower gravitational field equates to an increase in the flow of time, AND a lower inertial mass.

A partial analogy is to think how much energy an arrow would require to move through air or water.

A mass in motion, remains in motion. This is where the arrow analogy breaks down.

Imagine space as containing an infinite number of gravitational compass needles.

The needles have a very tiny mass, and like the magnetic compass needles, the gravitational compass needle has one side which is repelled by a gravitational field and one side which is attracted to a gravitational field.

It takes very little work to affect a small change in the randomness of the needles. But to make this work they need to have a preferred direction that they will return to.

A single mass will slightly deflect all the compasses within a volume of space, from their preferred orientation.

As the mass is accelerated through a space that contains these randomly pointing compasses, only a little bit of work is necessary to accelerate it and once at a velocity, to maintain its velocity.

How does the mass maintain velocity? The work that goes in to getting the mass up to velocity, was used to change the positions of a few needles from their preferred orientation. As the mass passes, the needle moves to its preferred position and brings its gravitationally repellent side to partially repel the mass.

As it moves at a fixed velocity, it is losing energy to the compass needles in front of it, while gaining an equal amount of energy from the compass needles behind it. A body in motion stays in motion.

Now lets add an ambient gravitational field. All of the random needle orientations are now slightly less random producing a local gravitational vector. The strength of the field is related to how much the needles diverge from randomness. Perfect alignment occurs at at g level greater than the acceleration of light.

With an ambient gravitational field present, it takes more energy to shift the needles. It takes more energy to get it up to the same velocity, then when the ambient field was not present. If the ambient gravitational is orienting a needle to oppose its movement, the object will need more energy to change the needles orientation because of the static gravitational field.

The inertial mass of the object has increased in the ambient gravitational field. The needles require more energy to change position. Once at a fixed velocity, it losses energy to the compass needles ahead of it and gains the same amount of energy from compass needles behind it.

Inertial mass is a property of the space an object mass moves through.

I bound time to the gravitational field by giving time (nearly?) infinite flow in empty (gravitationally free) space. Time slows down, with increasing gravitation.

Getting it from a concept or analogy to a mathematical construct is gonna be a challenge.

 

[jsfisher]

Are you trying to garble my statements?

Not at all. They were presented pre-garbled.

You have alleged that within a mass, time is constant, independent of velocity. The statement is bogus and doesn't agree with a long history of reliable, repeated observation.

Now, please either retract the statement or defend it, preferably without another goal post relocation. If it would help you leave the goal were it is, we can use the example of an accelerator (a mass) in a building (a bigger mass) in the basement below ground level (and therefore in the Earth, the same mass you claim diddled those neutrinos).

The CERN experiment showed that the Earth had shielded the neutrino beam from the relativistic affects of velocity. The Earth was an adequate mass to shield the effects of (2M meters per second?) of velocity that the Earth is apparently traveling through space with.

That's not what CERN showed. That is just a bald assertion you have made, one contradicted by so many other experiments.

By the way, are you now also asserting the Earth is traveling through space at a mere 2 m/s?

 

[DeathDart]

Big M 2+ million meters per second.

The CERN experiment along with many other observations contradict the currently held views on time.

You are resorting to sophistry. I don't know the mass at which the shielding begins, not without a complete mathematical model. A model that may be taking shape within other readers minds. Very few, if any of the elements I have used are new. The combination might be.

At some mass (still to be determined) time shielding begins.

Unless you can explain away why stars traveling with relativistic velocity are not dimmer. Or would this be another observation that they neglected to make?

Such a simple correlation should have jumped out of the data. So I can assume that it is not within the data. Time for the core mass of a relativistic star is constant.

The Earth is appears to have enough mass to produce time shielding. So relativistic stars and the Earth have enough mass. So these observations support time shielding.

Except for CERN and a universe full of relativistic stars, you do have a bunch of observations that are self consistent.

Observations and theorems that when moved from the local solar system and applied to the universe fall quite short. Consistency at what cost to relevancy?

Keep repeating the mantra of "Dark Matter". It is also obvious that if the same velocity, always equates to the same energy, why don't black holes form at these same areas? The galaxies with continuous radii having the same orbital velocity, should become one big train wreck, dotted with black holes.

Why don't the stars orbiting galaxies with the same velocity wander around or collide ? Dark Matter creates a flat gravitational plane.

It is like playing pool with heavily magnetized balls, if you can even break the racked set, it re-clumps immediately.

Time and inertial mass appear to be the factors that prevent the present equations from working.

So I should not be disappointed that another inconsistency has failed to dislodge the communal delusion.

 

[DeathDart]

Why don't relativistic stars collapse if their gravitational mass increases with velocity?

If time is flowing slower, the nuclear reactions are going slower. The forces resisting any collapse are decreasing while the gravitational forces of relativistic mass are increasing.

You have a gravitational cascade which is not observed.

 

[jsfisher]

Big M 2+ million meters per second.

Ah, yes, I misread that. So, 2 Mm/s. Seems a bit fast. Where'd you get that figure.

...
You are resorting to sophistry.

No, I am challenging your bogus statement that time has no velocity dependency inside a mass.

I don't know the mass at which the shielding begins, not without a complete mathematical model.

So, this is all something you are just hoping is true. No mathematics needed, because that would just clutter things up with reality and all that.

...
At some mass (still to be determined) time shielding begins.

I see. You guess mass does this thing. You guess it works only is some range for the mass. You guess the CERN experiment was within that range. And so on.

...
The Earth is appears to have enough mass to produce time shielding. So relativistic stars and the Earth have enough mass. So these observations support time shielding.

But the entire universe has too much mass, right? By the way, your only requirement was inside the mass; you never offered any constraint where inside the mass. And that brings me back to my rather simple example of any experiment involving time dilation conducted in a basement laboratory.

Do basement experiments (which are inside the mass of the Earth) get different results or not? Do particle accelerators come with warning labels not to install them below ground level?

 

[DeathDart]

I got that figure from the experiment.

If the mass time is at 1, then the surface would need to be slower by 2.37e-5 .

A little over 2 million meters per second will produce that amount of relativistic slowing. 2000Km sec does not not seem excessive.

It still needs the math, but the explanation does agree with observation. The math is quite necessary to prove and/or explain the affects that may be produced.

The mass effect obviously doesn't work for single particles since their decay rate is affected by velocity

It does work for relativistic stars since they don't gravitationally collapse.

It appears to be operating in the CERN experiment.

The entire universe would have have a single strength of gravitational field everywhere to invalidate. Perhaps you are trying to use mass generically to support what?

This an explanation of how the CERN result affects all of Cosmology. Time and inertial mass are related to the strength of the gravitational field. But not the way it is in your neighborhood where relativity is relevant. Relativity is still relevant, it just assumes that time is between zero and 1. I argue that time is infinity to zero.

Is it true that some hope that the Higgs Boson will explain inertial mass?

Some basement experiment might work. Without the math it would just be a guess, a guess that even I wouldn't be comfortable with.

Fiber optics at the bottom of oceanic trenches would seem to be a good candidate. You would have to test their velocity at the surface in pressures and temperatures equal to the ocean depth first. Then test their velocities at depth.

Who knows, maybe some fiber optic engineer has data that already verifies this effect.

The opening in space to allow caves and tunnels has an unknown effect. The neutrinos were going through very dense matter that was continuous with the Earths primary mass.

And you shouldn't be that confidant that this has not been found before. Who would bet there career on how well they designed an experiment that produced results like CERN? It could have been found and not published, multiple times. One hundred and sixty nine people isn't a research group, it is a gang formed for self defense.

 

[jsfisher]

I got that figure from the experiment.

If the mass time is at 1, then the surface would need to be slower by 2.37e-5 .

A little over 2 million meters per second will produce that amount of relativistic slowing. 2000Km sec does not not seem excessive.

I see. So you reverse-engineered the figure to fit whatever model this is that you are inventing. (By the way, I think the real figure is significantly smaller, well, if you believe NASA, that is.)

...
The mass effect obviously doesn't work for single particles since their decay rate is affected by velocity

Um, didn't you say it worked for neutrinos? Wasn't that the starting point?

At any rate, if the DeathDart Mass Effect doesn't work on single particles because they respond to time dilation effects, does that mean alpha particles are right out, too? And atoms? Molecules, too, I guess.

When does the Effect kind in?

More generally, help me understand all this. You invented a Earth speed figure that you thought fit some model of yours, despite there already being good estimates of the speed of the Earth through the cosmos. And you invented this mass can cause the rate of time to become constant, independent of velocity, but only within the right size of mass, a size range yet to be determined. And it only works on large things--certainly larger than single particles--except it works on neutrinos, too.

Do I have all that correct?

 

[DeathDart]

Sorry, my bad. And no,you don't have it right.

It is a volume of space where time is constant. The same volume of space as the mass of the Earth occupies. It is a property of space, although most people would have a hard time viewing solid rock as space. The skin depth before shielding begins is one of the currently unknown variables.

Neutrino velocity, within the constant time of Earths mass, IS the property that CERN measured. So, yes it did work. A change in the decay rate of only -2.37e-3 % would be difficult or impossible to measure.

If time wasn't constant (or closely approximating constant) we would not be able to observe ANY stars above a relativistic threshold, since all of them would have gravitationally collapsed. Since we can still see them, then their mass is not affected by relativistic time.

I tried to use Time Space prematurely, the math exploded like an egg in a microwave oven. But one of the incorrect possibilities was a model with the surface and the interior mass have different properties due to shielding. Shielding was in a very flawed vehicle, but it would may a comeback.

So actually I tried at least three different theories, with two of them splattering on the windshield.

Time shielding affects everything within that volume of space, nuclear reactions and the flow of time. Though for rare (possible?) examples that time should different from the surface. Because there are isolated (solar systems?) where Newtons laws would be difficult to recognize.

So for a particle within the shielding of the planets, mass time would speed up slightly.

Since the neutrinos are highly relativistic the time correction is only slightly less than for the speed of light. Correcting using the mass form instead of the velocity form is correct. Comparing velocity for non-relativistic objects would be something like SQRT(c surface/c interior)) to maintain conservation. Though how a non-relativistic particle would move through solid rock would be an interesting problem.

 

[Reality Check]

The CERN experiment showed that the Earth had shielded the neutrino beam from the relativistic affects of velocity. The Earth was an adequate mass to shield the effects of (2M meters per second?) of velocity that the Earth is apparently traveling through space with.

Wrong: The science is that there is probably a systematic error in the CERN expewriment becaus eit is an outlier result (DeathDart, Can you understand that a difference of 10,0000 times is different? )

That systematic error may have been tracted to a bad cable connection - Doubts grow over superluminal-neutrino result.

That mass can shield neutrinos from relativistic effects is just a crank idea unless you come up with the actual numbers.

 

[Reality Check]

I got that figure from the experiment.
...gibberish....

Where in the experiment is the velocitiy of the Earth cited?
They will have taken in account the rotation of the Earth.

FYI: The average orbital speed of the Earth around the Sun is 29.78 km/s. But the velocity of the Sun is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity~220 km/s (orbit around the center of the Galaxy)
~20 km/s (relative to average velocity of other stars in stellar neighborhood)
~370 km/s[4] (relative to the cosmic microwave background)
~220 km/s (orbit around the center of the Galaxy)
~20 km/s (relative to average velocity of other stars in stellar neighborhood)
~370 km/s[4] (relative to the cosmic microwave background)

 

[jsfisher]

Sorry, my bad. And no,you don't have it right.

It is a volume of space where time is constant. The same volume of space as the mass of the Earth occupies.

Yes, that's not a change from what you have said before.

It is a property of space, although most people would have a hard time viewing solid rock as space. The skin depth before shielding begins is one of the currently unknown variables.

And the goal posts move yet again. So, now it requires some unspecified depth within the mass for the DeathDart Mass Effect to, as you say, begin.

You theory, if I can call it that, seems very flexible.

So, everything I said before was true, but now with the added proviso the DeathDart Mass Effect works only after a certain depth within the mass is achieved.

The DeathDart Mass Effect works within some unspecified range of mass, but only beyond some unspecified depth into the mass, and only on some unspecified types of matter.

By the way, your 2 Mm/s is still wrong. But that's just math, right? so it doesn't matter.

 

[Reality Check]

...usual gibberish...
Though how a non-relativistic particle would move through solid rock would be an interesting problem.

Actually scientists study how non-relativistic particles move through solids all of the time, e.g. all of the neutrino experiments use non-relativistic particles. Remember that the evidence is that neutrinos have mass and travel less than the speed of light (e.g. supernova 1987A).
Scientists have been studying non-relativistic particles move through solids for over a century now, e.g. see Rutherford's experiments on how alpha particles travel through gold.

 

[DeathDart]

Actually scientists study how non-relativistic particles move through solids all of the time, e.g. all of the neutrino experiments use non-relativistic particles. Remember that the evidence is that neutrinos have mass and travel less than the speed of light (e.g. supernova 1987A).
Scientists have been studying non-relativistic particles move through solids for over a century now, e.g. see Rutherford's experiments on how alpha particles travel through gold.

Come on, you are not even trying.

87% speed of light just for an arbitrary division between non-relativistic and relativistic.

Non relativistic neutrinos (less than i/2 normal time flow) aren't even detectable.

Non relativistic charged particles might make it through a piece of paper or very thin foil.

This is the best that this fishbowl can do?

 

[Reality Check]

Come on, you are not even trying.

87% speed of light just for an arbitrary division between non-relativistic and relativistic.

Non relativistic neutrinos (less than i/2 normal time flow) aren't even detectable.

Non relativistic charged particles might make it through a piece of paper or very thin foil.

This is the best that this fishbowl can do?

Come on you are just displaying your ignorance.

1. There is no arbitrary 87% speed of light limit between non-relativistic and relativistic.
   What usually determines the split between non-relativistic and relativistic is whether the relativistic effects are significant in the measurement.
2. All neutrinos are detectable.
3. Any particle might make it through a piece of paper or very thin foil.

This is the best that this crank can do?

 

[DeathDart]

Actually I tend to be reactive.

Watching an idea do a Hindenburg or

desperately defending an idea.

Either way, the process goes quicker if my opposites, have some enthusiasm.

Should I toss out something that is ridiculous, to warm you up?