Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[DeathDart]

So, how does your theory relate to Bjarne's theory?

Or do you at this time consider your theory more correct than Bjarne's theory?
In other words, would you at this time be willing to discard your theory for Bjarne's theory?

Not to be cruel but what I have read of Bjarne's theory, it seems to be incomprehensible. My first attempts were about as bad, but from the other bloggers it seems Bjarne, doesn't improve with time.

He also seems to want to reinvent the Universe. While I find "Dark Matter" an easy target, especially with many decades of negative particle physics evidence. Much of what science accepts as true, is true.

If my solution is correct, it just substitutes fast time for "Dark Matter". It could also address several other anomalies. It appears to be a solution which causes compaction of several anomalies down to one cause.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the local g is 6.674e-11

6.674e-11 what? You screwed up your units before, and in a very basic way which made everything you said nonsense. You do not appear to have figured out your error.

How did you measure time dilation Expansion?

With a clock, of course.

 

[DeathDart]

My solution is still standing.

I won't reject it without a good, reasonable explanation of its flaws.

Shall I resort to taunting, to encourage you to keep attacking?

 

[DeathDart]

6.674e-11 what? You screwed up your units before, and in a very basic way which made everything you said nonsense. You do not appear to have figured out your error.



With a clock, of course.

Sorry the editor removed the extra spaces.

local g (small g) is the gravitational field in an area of space.

Big G is the gravitational constant
gravitational constant = 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

If the mass of the clock is small enough (like the half-life of isotopes) it will go faster.

Biological processes appear like that they would do the same thing. If you didn't travel through this fast space in either a high mass ship, or one that was going fast enough to be relativistically slowed down, your metabolism would speed up and you would either run out of supplies or die of old age before you got very far.

I think I can give you what would be a safe mass for a spacecraft, in a few moments.

1+SQRT(G/g) = Time expansion

Time expansion rapidly expands below a gravitational acceleration strength of 6.674E-11 s-2 This number is a guess, but it seems to be working OK so far.

 

[Ziggurat]

local g (small g) is the gravitational field in an area of space.

Big G is the gravitational constant
gravitational constant = 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

You have the units on G correct. But you screwed up the units on g in the past. How have you done this time around?

Time expansion rapidly expands below a gravitational acceleration strength of 6.674E-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

Uh-oh. You screwed up again, even worse this time. G doesn't have units of acceleration. This is (rather obviously) not an acceleration you have given here.

This number is a guess, but it seems to be working OK so far.

Just a guess? It's complete nonsense. It's got the wrong units! If you've got the wrong units, your answer is guaranteed to be wrong.

 

[DeathDart]

You have the units on G correct. But you screwed up the units on g in the past. How have you done this time around?



Uh-oh. You screwed up again, even worse this time. G doesn't have units of acceleration. This is (rather obviously) not an acceleration you have given here.



Just a guess? It's complete nonsense. It's got the wrong units! If you've got the wrong units, your answer is guaranteed to be wrong.

Ok, how About G'

G'= 6.674E-11 meters per sec2

The numerical result appears correct.

I plugged it into a couple of the measured galactic curves and it gives reasonable numbers once I get a credible mass.

I haven't figured out how to correct for the density of material in these orbits so it changes the shape of the curve.

 

[DeathDart]

Thanks for helping me. These are exactly the things I have to get right.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok, how About G'

What about G'? G' has no meaning. You pulled it out of nowhere.

The numerical result appears correct.

They can't be if the units are wrong. And your units are wrong.

 

[DeathDart]

What about G'? G' has no meaning. You pulled it out of nowhere.



They can't be if the units are wrong. And your units are wrong.

I used the numerical value of G the gravitational constant as a test value to see if it gave a reasonable number on the galactic curves. It's close using just a spreadsheet program.

1+ SQRT(G'/local g) G'=6.674E-11, Yes, I did incorrectly use G, and I did make up G' by removing the mass units from G.

little g is local gravity field as acceleration.


(G)gravitational constant = 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

(M X G)/ Radius(squared)=g

5.337026E-08 is 16 times G' G'=6.674E-11

Looks like a sphere weighing 3200 Kilograms, less than 4 meters in diameter would subject the contents to a time speed up of about 25%, worse case. Not so bad, as long as you don't get too far from the ship.

 

[DeathDart]

The worst case being in a region of space with Zero Gravity.
G'=6.674E-11
The equation 1+ SQRT(G'/local g) blows up because time is now infinite.

This is a possible mechanism for creating inflation after the big bang.

 

[Ziggurat]

I used the numerical value of G the gravitational constant as a test value to see if it gave a reasonable number on the galactic curves.

But the number doesn't mean anything when you just change the units arbitrarily, which is what you did. It's completely arbitrary. And if you had used DIFFERENT units for G (for example stone^-1 miles³/fortnight²), then switched units using the same numerical value, you'd arrive at a different answer than you did. Even if you then converted to SI, it would still be different. But there's nothing special about SI units. They're convenient, but they aren't in any way fundamental. So your value means nothing. It comes from nowhere. If it gives you an answer you think makes sense, that's nothing more than coincidence, because the number was arbitrary to begin with.

Besides which, we've already measured the gravitational effects on the passage of time. And it matches the predictions of General Relativity.

 

[tsig]

We're not going to have to explain spacetime again are we?

Even cats understand spacetime.


http://faculty.uca.edu/rnovy/Leiber--SpaceTime for Springers.htm

 

[tsig]

Actually I was trying to use a more common experience to present an analogy. I am more of a Faraday than a Maxwell. I tend to follow an older and somewhat disparaged method of thinking.
Maybe that is why physics is such a mess, with undetectable "Dark Matter" hiding under the bed.

All you Maxwell, pure mathematical types, are terrible at making discoveries.

But you are damned good, at tying all the loose ends, into knots.

Magic?

 

[DeathDart]

But the number doesn't mean anything when you just change the units arbitrarily, which is what you did. It's completely arbitrary. And if you had used DIFFERENT units for G (for example stone^-1 miles³/fortnight²), then switched units using the same numerical value, you'd arrive at a different answer than you did. Even if you then converted to SI, it would still be different. But there's nothing special about SI units. They're convenient, but they aren't in any way fundamental. So your value means nothing. It comes from nowhere. If it gives you an answer you think makes sense, that's nothing more than coincidence, because the number was arbitrary to begin with.

Besides which, we've already measured the gravitational effects on the passage of time. And it matches the predictions of General Relativity.

It is a strength of gravitational attraction. This one 6.674E-11 looks OK, so far. It is probably the 6th or 7th number that I have tried.

I have spent several decades looking for a solution for the cause of the high velocities in the galactic curves.

Since it may also address other anomalies, if it turns out to be correct, it may simplify the order of physics. The hypothesis that time's origin is in space, and not in matter, and that our reality may be a mix of both, surprised me.

Even if it turns out to be wrong, it is interesting.

From the first time I heard of "Dark Matter", I felt, without knowing why, that it was illogical. Years of non-results have enforced that opinion.

The speed of light can be derived from the values of Magnetic Permeability and Permittivity for a vacuum. That the Gravitational Constant could have another use is not all that surprising, if it turns out to be correct value.

And it matches the predictions of General Relativity.

At the high end of the energy and gravitational spectrum it is correct.

I began to examine the lower end of the gravitational spectrum and that is where a lot of anomalies seemed to be congregating.

What is KNOWN
Direction of gravity is from faster time (weaker gravity), to slower time (stronger gravity).

Time slows down as you get closer to a mass.

As a particles acceleration increases, the particle will experience a slower passage of time.

Increasing velocity also translates to slower time.

The well known equation that describes the decrease in time SQRT(1- V²/C²) with increasing velocity.


What I suspect is true.

With increasing distance from a mass, gravitational acceleration decreases and there is a simultaneous increase in the flow of time.

Until this point, it had always been assumed that time was limited to a maximum speed of ONE.

There are two equations, because there are two entities with different properties mixing.
High End....................Gravity................................ Low End
SQRT(1- V²/C²)________________________1+SQRT(G'/g)

 

[DeathDart]

Magic?

Mathematics is a language to describe things very precisely. Sometimes the mathematics that describes it, can also predict it's consequences.

Mathematics does not automatically describe what the person who wrote the equations, did not see.

Intuition, the imprecision of the Faraday type of Mind. The forgotten "why" made irrelevant by Quantum mechanics.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is a strength of gravitational attraction.

G is the strength of gravitational attraction. G' is a meaningless number which happens to share the same digits as G, given the arbitrary choice of SI units. But that's irrelevant. G' has no meaning.

I have spent several decades looking for a solution for the cause of the high velocities in the galactic curves.

And you never noticed that you couldn't keep your units straight?

That's a hell of a lot of wasted effort, I'm sorry to say.

The speed of light can be derived from the values of Magnetic Permeability and Permittivity for a vacuum. That the Gravitational Constant could have another use is not all that surprising, if it turns out to be correct value.

But it doesn't have another use. Your G' is not the gravitational constant. It only coincidentally has the same digits as G when expressed in one particular arbitrary set of units, but the dimensions are completely different, and if you use a different set of units it won't even match the digits. If you change the dimensions of a constant, it isn't the same constant anymore. It's something completely different. And in this case, that something different essentially comes from nowhere.

Time slows down as you get closer to a mass.

Yes, it does. This effect has been measured. It matches General Relativity. Does it match your theory? Why don't you test it?

 

[DeathDart]

G is the strength of gravitational attraction. G' is a meaningless number which happens to share the same digits as G, given the arbitrary choice of SI units. But that's irrelevant. G' has no meaning.

And you never noticed that you couldn't keep your units straight?

That's a hell of a lot of wasted effort, I'm sorry to say.?

I was not given the luxury of getting a formal education, so your units of measure, strict formalism, is starting to piss me off.

When you calculate the force of acceleration or gravity some distance from a mass what units is it in, ft/lbs? So you are the one that crashed that probe into Mars' atmosphere?

G' represents a gravitational field strength in whatever ******* units you like.

It does share the same digits as G The Gravitational constant.

 

[DeathDart]

Yes, it does. This effect has been measured. It matches General Relativity. Does it match your theory? Why don't you test it?

At what distance from the origin point does super nova remnant brightening occur? Is it around the distance that the strength of gravity drops below 6.674E-11, it takes a few years to get that far, even if you are traveling 7000Kms.

What is in the debris by the final supernova explosion? Are there a lot of short lived isotopes with 1-100 year half-lifes?

If the Pioneer spacecraft had a long baseline actual distance measurement done, I think the space craft would have shown a significant deviation from prediction. On the order of 1 part in 10000 depending on when the equations are applicable.

Unfortunately the Pioneer Space Craft would just phase lock on the incoming signal from Earth and repeat the frequency and send it back out. There was a small blue shift, but its cause has not been resolved. No accurate absolute position information was available.

You have these stars orbiting galaxies with velocities that are many multiples of what they should be, and so you had to invent "Dark Matter" to get rid of the discrepancy. What part of relativity is "Dark Matter" from?

How would you test a theory that would require a gravitational field strength of 1E-11 or smaller, oh wait Supernova remnants and the velocity of stars orbiting in the weak gravitational spaces around galaxies. Oh wait I can't use that, it is too crowded, that is where your "Dark Matter" is.

 

[Bjarne]

Even cats understand spacetime.


http://faculty.uca.edu/rnovy/Leiber--SpaceTime for Springers.htm

COWS understand 1700% more space-time as cats does, here is the evidence;

This gives the de Broglie relations a universal character for spin-half particles in a curved spacetime. We show that COW and Sagnac type terms also appear in the Whitham equations
Sourse http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.3201

And don't forget THIS the strongest evidence ever (that NASA have kept secret in 107 years) http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080627195644/uncyclopedia/images/c/c0/Space_cow.jpg

This proves that cows are fare a head of humans >

http://www.maniacworld.com/ufo-cow-abduction.html

http://scottcwaring.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/086471ac-24ee-4538-b032-ce69e7e6d7b894.jpg

http://www.physicsgroupie.com/2009/10/moo-cows-science-adventures.html

 

[edd]

Looks like a sphere weighing 3200 Kilograms, less than 4 meters in diameter would subject the contents to a time speed up of about 25%, worse case. Not so bad, as long as you don't get too far from the ship.

Errr, you're saying a 3200kg mass in a 4m diameter sphere will cause serious funkiness in the flow of time??

Hint - we're not exactly talking neutron star densities here.