Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Ziggurat]

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

If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I've gone easy on you, and in fact I've understated the problem. If I were to tell you that I'm 6 kilometers tall, you might conclude that I had the wrong units. But at least that's still a length, so the dimension is right. But if I said I was 5 Coulombs tall, or that I weigh 3 seconds, or that the distance from my house to my office is 18 Ohms, well, that's not simply the wrong units, those are the wrong dimensions. And it doesn't take any formal education to understand that, and the importance of getting the right dimensions, not just units, isn't a matter of strict formalism either: if it's wrong, everything is wrong.

And your dimensions are wrong. You can't arbitrarily throw out dimensions either in order to rescue your answer.

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

No, it doesn't. G does. But G' has different dimensions than G, not just different units. G' is meaningless, and the procedure you used to obtain it is arbitrary and inconsistent. Valid methods for obtaining physical constants don't depend on which units you use. The numerical answer does, but after-the-fact unit conversion will show agreement. This is not the case for your G': start with different units for G, and your answers for G' will not agree even with unit conversion. Try it if you don't believe me. Which makes your G' an arbitrary number, nothing more.

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

That is meaningless.

 

[DeathDart]

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.

A clarification of nomenclature. The realms of Mass and Time

Space Time is in the realm of mass and gravity. The equations and experiments of relativity are correct (when there is a lot of mass around).

Time Space is in the realm of space where there is very little or any mass or gravity.

I suggest that Time is a property of space.

It can safely presumed that Mass creates gravity, gravity which slows down Time. Mass makes the speed of time visible. The more Mass and energy (velocity) available the slower time gets. Time stops at the speed of light.

If a person were in a volume of space in which there was not any other Mass or gravity, they would have big problem.

The Mass of their own body would be generating a weak gravitational field.

In pure empty space, the flow of Time could be infinite.

If the time flow of Time is infinite, then your metabolic rate which is driven by time, would also accelerate (Because you have Mass it would not be infinite). You would age very rapidly or use up your supplies very quickly. To an outside observer, you would be in fast forward, (conservation of energy is maintained).

By being within enough mass, you can avoid this problem. The flow of Time can be kept near One.

Perhaps more important than keeping Time slow, is that your body be within a uniform area of time. If your feet are experiencing time significantly faster than your heart, your feet would use up oxygen faster, but your heart would only pump it at a slower rate. Too big a Time gradient across your body, for too long, and you are dead.

In the case of isotopes and Super Nova Remnants SNR, the individual atoms appear to experience a speed up in Time when they encounter weak gravitational space.

With enough Mass, the flow of Time can be managed to keep you alive. I could be seeing this wrong and maybe the Mass of the body wouldn't be this disastrously affected in an area with zero gravity.

 

[DeathDart]

If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

No, it doesn't. G does. But G' has different dimensions than G, not just different units. G' is meaningless, and the procedure you used to obtain it is arbitrary and inconsistent. Valid methods for obtaining physical constants don't depend on which units you use. The numerical answer does, but after-the-fact unit conversion will show agreement. This is not the case for your G': start with different units for G, and your answers for G' will not agree even with unit conversion. Try it if you don't believe me. Which makes your G' an arbitrary number, nothing more.

That is meaningless.

Sure I will leave the Kitchen as soon as you show me the "Dark Matter". Where did Einstein put "Dark Matter" in relativity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
The strength of the gravitational field is numerically equal to the acceleration of objects under its influence,

G' = 6.674E-11 m/s

It is one of several numbers that I tried. It works fairly well. Is it the final value? I can't tell.

Plug it into the Galactic Velocity curves to correct the velocity.

I believe the equation to convert Gravitational force to the equivalent orbital velocity without time correction is SQRT(g*radius). g=local gravitational field strength.

(G) gravitational constant = 6.67300 × 10-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
g = G (m1*m2)/(r^2)

1Kpc=3.086090E+19 m

G' = 6.674E-11 m/s
There are two equations, because there are two entities having different properties mixing.
Time Stops.....................Time...........................Time is Infinite
High Mass.......................Gravity................................ No Mass
SQRT(1- V²/C²)________________________1+SQRT(G'/g) Calculating Time Flow

 

[edd]

DeathDart - you are making no sense and have seemingly made zero attempt to explain your apparently nonsensical numbers.

 

[edd]

Sure I will leave the Kitchen as soon as you show me the "Dark Matter". Where did Einstein put "Dark Matter" in relativity?

The obvious place - with the matter!. GR doesn't care what matter is - only where it is.

You're not on the same page. You're not even in the same library.

 

[Ziggurat]

G' = 6.674E-11 m/s

That's a velocity, not an acceleration. Velocity and acceleration not only have different units, they have different dimensions. You are still unable to grasp the significance of this fact. That is... troubling.

1+SQRT(G'/g)

Now G' doesn't have the same units or dimensions as g. So you're adding a pure number to a number which has units. That makes no sense. It is, quite literally, nonsense.

The merits or faults of dark matter are irrelevant to this question. Hell, the rest of your "theory" is irrelevant too. Your equation is quite obviously wrong, by simple dimensional analysis. And despite being told that it's wrong because of dimensional analysis, you aren't able to fix the problem, or even understand that it exists.

We need look no further to conclude that you have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about, and can ignore everything else, because nothing correct can flow from such fundamental flaws.

 

[DeathDart]

The obvious place - with the matter!. GR doesn't care what matter is - only where it is.

You're not on the same page. You're not even in the same library.

The thread is about Dark Energy which is related to dark matter.

"Dark Matter" was created to correct the velocity curves of Galaxies.

The velocity curves did not obey the distance/squared law of gravity and was also disobeying the gravitational surface integral.

I suggest that gravity does obey the rules. It is Time, that is causing the higher velocities.

A mass produces a gravitational field that modifies the time of the space it is in.

Time has always been assumed to have an upper limit of ONE.

I suggest that in space, without any matter or gravity, that time is infinite.

As a gravitational field in space increases, time slows down.

While the gravitational field is still the same strength as expected for the stars orbiting galaxies, the velocity is wrong.

The velocity is wrong because the two fields, the one from the galaxy and the one from the star, are interacting at a gravitational strength that has a higher time flow. The force of gravity is the same, the flow of time has increased and multiplied the effects of gravity.

Time Stops.....................Time...........................Time is Infinite
High Mass.......................Gravity................................ No Mass
SQRT(1- V²/C²)________________________1+SQRT(G'/g) Calculating Time Flow
G' = 6.674E-11 m/s

 

[DeathDart]

The obvious place - with the matter!. GR doesn't care what matter is - only where it is.

You're not on the same page. You're not even in the same library.

Actually this MIGHT be the missing chapter in relativity.

Relativity was mostly concerned with strong gravitational fields.

I am not sure if it attempts to understand the origin of Time.

I suggest that the origin of Time is in Space and that matter (and Gravity) moderates time.

 

[edd]

Got more patience for Bjarne to be honest.

 

[DeathDart]

These are not iron clad statements, I thought I had solved the galactic velocity curve problem before. I or someone else, would find a severe flaw and it was back to the drawing board.

Being right, would be a surprise. No one likes to see me happy (conspiracy?, so prove me wrong

 

[Toke]

These are not iron clad statements, I thought I had solved the galactic velocity curve problem before. I or someone else, would find a severe flaw and it was back to the drawing board.

Being right, would be a surprise. No one likes to see me happy (conspiracy?, so prove me wrong

I believe the proving right/wrong require some rather specific statements, ones with correct units. You have a problem there.

 

[DeathDart]

That's a velocity, not an acceleration. Velocity and acceleration not only have different units, they have different dimensions. You are still unable to grasp the significance of this fact. That is... troubling.



Now G' doesn't have the same units or dimensions as g. So you're adding a pure number to a number which has units. That makes no sense. It is, quite literally, nonsense.

The merits or faults of dark matter are irrelevant to this question. Hell, the rest of your "theory" is irrelevant too. Your equation is quite obviously wrong, by simple dimensional analysis. And despite being told that it's wrong because of dimensional analysis, you aren't able to fix the problem, or even understand that it exists.

We need look no further to conclude that you have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about, and can ignore everything else, because nothing correct can flow from such fundamental flaws.

How is the strength of gravity expressed in open space?
What are the units?

 

[Ziggurat]

How is the strength of gravity expressed in open space?

The same way it's expressed everywhere: as an acceleration, not a velocity.

What are the units?

The SI units for acceleration are m/s².

If you've really spent as long as you claim trying to figure all this out, why are you only now learning the most basic aspects? Because nothing about physics is more basic than the dimensions used.

 

[DeathDart]

Can we use M33 as a test bed.

I found this
http://www.hep.shef.ac.uk/research/dm/intro.php

It has a graph of velocities and orbiting radius.

If you have an example with columnar data so we don't have to interpret the data from the graph it would be better.

 

[DeathDart]

The same way it's expressed everywhere: as an acceleration, not a velocity.



The SI units for acceleration are m/s².

If you've really spent as long as you claim trying to figure all this out, why are you only now learning the most basic aspects? Because nothing about physics is more basic than the dimensions used.

Thank you

 

[DeathDart]

Is it Ok if I call it gT2=6.674E-11 m/s² g to indicate local space, T2 because according to my theory this is where the flow of time equals 2.

gT2=6.674E-11 m/s²

1+SQRT(gT2/g)

Is this satisfactory?

 

[edd]

Oh dear. No, Newtons big G is not in m/s^2.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is it Ok if I call it gT2=6.674E-11 m/s² g to indicate local space, T2 because according to my theory this is where the flow of time equals 2.

gT2=6.674E-11 m/s²

1+SQRT(gT2/g)

Is this satisfactory?

You now have dimensions and units which don't conflict. But that's only a 1st step. If your units are wrong, then your answer is necessarily wrong, but having the right units isn't sufficient to make your answer right. There are an infinitude of wrong answers with the right units.

The value for gT2 comes from nowhere. You've set it equal to the numerical value for G, but this equivalency is meaningless since the dimensions are different. So if your theory actually works, either these numerical values agree completely by chance, or SI units are fundamental to physics. The latter is absurd (they were not defined on the basis of anything fundamental), and the former is not credible. It's too unlikely a coincidence to believe. So I would need to see rather incredible evidence to convince me that your gT2 has any relevance to anything.

 

[DeathDart]

Oh dear. No, Newtons big G is not in m/s^2.

When big G is used to determine the force on a kilogram mass, I believe it reduces to an acceleration at a distance.

If it was expressed as Newtons, it would be expressed as Newtons per kilogram.

For the purposes here, an acceleration appears sufficient.

 

[DeathDart]

You now have dimensions and units which don't conflict. But that's only a 1st step. If your units are wrong, then your answer is necessarily wrong, but having the right units isn't sufficient to make your answer right. There are an infinitude of wrong answers with the right units.

The value for gT2 comes from nowhere. You've set it equal to the numerical value for G, but this equivalency is meaningless since the dimensions are different. So if your theory actually works, either these numerical values agree completely by chance, or SI units are fundamental to physics. The latter is absurd (they were not defined on the basis of anything fundamental), and the former is not credible. It's too unlikely a coincidence to believe. So I would need to see rather incredible evidence to convince me that your gT2 has any relevance to anything.

I agree, if we were using other units like pounds (not a real mass) the value of G would change. G appears to be the correction factor for the mks system. It is a factor relevant to gravity though it would indeed be a big coincidence.

Can we use M33 as a test bed. Lets see what kind of numbers it generates.

I found this
http://www.hep.shef.ac.uk/research/dm/intro.php

It has a graph of velocities and orbiting radius.

If you have an example with columnar data, so we don't have to interpret the data from the graph it would be better.
If you have a site with actual data rather than a graph please post it.
Thank you