• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Puzzling results from CERN

Main steam Astrophysics isn't so sure that they got it right. In their writing I detect a lot of frustration with getting the models to fit the observations.

Having time speed up, along with increasing the rate of radioactive decay makes their models simpler. The motion of the nebula doesn't have to supply the energy for the system. So instead of spending a lot of their efforts on determining where the energy is coming from, they can explore the wider dynamics.

As long as they keep trying to get the the backwards traveling shock wave to generate the energy, they have tied their shoelaces together. The physics that they know will answer the rest, they just have to get away from using that model since it messes up everything after that.
 
The CERN results are real.

If your models and their associated mathematics cannot explain the CERN result, where is the problem? Is it their experiment, or your model?

If the results are wrong, why are they wrong?

If this was some text book problem, you would be leaving me in the dust.

The problem now, is to ask the right question(s).

After you run through all the geometric possibilities, the obvious question becomes the speed of light.

Basic Logic. (Level of Certainty= LOC)
1.Nothing material can go faster than light. No Exceptions LOC 100%

2. If they neutrinos traveled a path at a certain velocity then the velocity of light would have been greater than the neutrinos. LOC 100%

3. What was that velocity? If their geometry is wrong and the path was too short then light does not have to be traveling faster than GR calculates for its path.

4.What if they measured time significantly wrong? Light's speed and the neutrinos should also be predicted by GR.

5.Nobody finds anything wrong with the experiment.

5A. Something (X) is invented to make GR work. If what is invented can only be inferred by the CERN experiment (no other experiment detects it) because the present model needs X to work. How does that make X real? If dark matter had some other independently verifiable interaction, I might find it acceptable.

5B. The model is changed that amount that will account for all the proven observations that were anomalous with the old model.

So the four choices;
They screwed up.
A factor will be glued onto the model.
The model will be changed.
Ignore it, we can't understand it, therefore it cannot be real. (Business School Model not science)
 
"After you run through all the geometric possibilities, the obvious question becomes the speed of light. "

I picked the speed of light, because it was a logical choice, and it is fundamental. Will anyone want to argue that the speed of light is not fundamental, a primary aspect of the universe?

The (local) speed of light is approximately 299,792,458 meters per second.

Change in the mass of an object due to velocity = MASS/Sqrt(1-(C2/V2)) An objects mass is divided by time. Time decreases, inertial mass increases.

So I have the speed of light and that mass can be changed by time.

The flat galactic velocity curves can be solved without using "Dark Matter" by having the inertial mass of the objects go down with increasing distance. Relativity is an example of time affecting mass. But was it the velocity or the time which causes the mass to change? The flow of time and the change in mass track each other exactly. Therefore I have established the existence of a relationship between mass and time.

What is the velocity of a mass in empty space without any gravitational fields present?

These are the starting conditions of the "Big Bang". I admit I don't fully understand the reasons behind the need for cosmological inflation, though I believe it has to do with the fine structure or distribution of matter that is now observed. So after the "Big Bang" the universe was briefly expanding at vastly faster velocities than the present value of c.

I suggest that the "Big Bang" was expanding into space that did not have any gravitational field present. So I suggest that the mass that was to become the universe, did not project a gravitational field into space.

I also suggest that the flow of time in space without any gravitational field present, is infinite.

Using the equation from relativity: the inertial mass is divided by the flow of time. At relativistic velocities time is less than one so inertial mass increases. The infinite flow of time in empty space would make inertial mass: zero. Inflation would continue until the amount of mass (through gravity) reduced the flow of time. It should be simple to model inflation in real time : )

Gravitational lensing could also be called time lensing. The path of light is affected by the gradient of the space time it encounters. The strength of the gradient and the amount of time spent in the gradient will determine the amount of refraction or bending.
Starting and assumed conditions The flow of time is dependent upon the strength of the gravitational field present.

1. A very large dispersed mass like a large galaxy with no other masses nearby.

2. The gravitational field strength drops off with the square of the distance from an extended mass. Similar to the measurement of brightness from a large optical source.

3. If time does obey the DeathDart Equation Time= 1+(SQRT(gt2/g))= Time Flow, time flow should be in the range of 10 -100 at the outer edge of the galaxy. At an infinite distance from the galaxy the flow of time is infinite.

While a gravitationally based lens falls off very quickly in strength, the speed of time (the inverse of gravity) has a high rate of time change (gradient) whose rate of change drops more slowly over distance. A higher time gradient will extend much farther into space. The higher time gradient could bend a beam of light much more than a calculation based upon a gravity model that is independent of time. The higher bending of light could be assumed to be the result of hidden mass.

So an incorrect model of time and gravity will have you believing that you have hidden mass because of the galactic velocity curve and the bending of light by galaxies.

The CERN result actually opens another can of worms. Because the jet structures work independent of the state of the matter that they are accelerating, I believe that they are a form of gravitational induction. I have suspected the existence of gravitational induction for some time now. Actually theories of gravitational induction probably existed on the fringes of science for over a hundred years and are considered fringe even with the anomalous observations of jets.

I got a perfect solution (nailed it, but only one data point) for the CERN experiment if I assumed that the gravitational field and therefore the time along the neutrino path was nearly 3 orders less than the surface gravity. The calculated time did match the field that would be centripetal generated by the material that the neutrinos were passing through. So surface gravitational field did not seem to extend below the surface under the conditions of the test.

Speculation to the Max
It might be possible to measure the same time effect using fiber optics. The neutrinos were traveling through dense solids. If the exclusion of the surface gravitational field is scale related, a tiny micron opening might not cause the reemergence of the surface gravity field. Obviously surface gravity exists in mines.

If a speed of a fiber optic (spool?) is measured at surface gravity and it is placed into a deep body of water does its transmission speed change? This could be compared to the same fiber optic placed into a bucket of water or placed in a tank so that it can match the pressure conditions at the bottom of a large body of water. If the signal velocity of the fiber optic at the bottom of a large body of water was faster (after taking all other conditions except gravity immersion into effect) this could be a cheaper way of verifying the effect.

With my luck it will be slower, then we can all take turns shrugging.
 
Last edited:
DeathDart said:
The CERN results are real.

If your models and their associated mathematics cannot explain the CERN result, where is the problem? Is it their experiment, or your model?
Click to expand...
The CERN results are real.

The facts are that they are unlikely to be correct. If the experiment is found to have no systematic errors and it is replicated then the "model" will change,

That is what science does.
 
DeathDart said:
I picked the speed of light, because it was a logical choice, and it is fundamental. Will anyone want to argue that the speed of light is not fundamental, a primary aspect of the universe?
...snipped gibberish, drivel and ignorance...
Click to expand...
The speed of light is "fundamental" in the sense that it appears in most of physics.
 
One of the problems with mathematics is that it is a descriptive language.

Unlike words like blue, or cat, there is a lot of assumed knowledge in using mathematics to convey a concept.

Can you see what the person was trying to describe, or do you see the math?

If you can only see the math, get out of science.

Many of the better minds in history see it in their heads, and they use math to try and get you to see it. Back then, the observed phenomena could not differ significantly from the math, or the math was changed.

We have a log jam of observations that was probably started by mathematicians. If they were running any kind of model in their heads it should have become contradictory at some point.

I have seen a lot of theories that would barely clear the starting line before hitting the wall. The model in your head should duplicate at least some aspect of what is observed. Some models are tough so you have to break it into bits. When you can visualize, hear the music, or feel the form of all the pieces of the model, then you run the whole thing.

If you have trained your mind correctly it won't deviate from reality when running the full model. If it is as bad as some of the things I have read, then you never have to learn the whole model, since a few steps through it, the model logically faults. I can see the frustration of some of the people when they keep getting multiple orders of magnitude variability.

Luckily I don't have to keep writing paper that don't go anywhere. Some of these people have to write papers they know are flawed because that is how the system works. They try to change this or that and it still doesn't work.

A fundamental error in a field is painful to watch, even if I don't have an answer myself. There is a recognizable pattern to a conceptual rut. That recognition comes from walking in their shoes. Beat your head against a wall for a decade, or more, and you should notice that you are beating your head against a wall. Stop and think. don't do any more experiments, don't run any more calculations. You, a pencil, and a blank piece of paper and someplace where you can hear your own thoughts.

Some people find thinking unpleasant. You could literally torture some people by putting them in a quiet room, alone. Busy is not the same as productive. Staring at a spot somewhere in time and space doesn't look productive, but it did get you out of the caves.
 
DeathDart said:
...
If you have trained your mind correctly it won't deviate from reality when running the full model. If it is as bad as some of the things I have read, then you never have to learn the whole model, since a few steps through it, the model logically faults. I can see the frustration of some of the people when they keep getting multiple orders of magnitude variability.
...
Click to expand...

More training required then.
 
DeathDart said:
One of the problems with mathematics is that it is a descriptive language.
Click to expand...
One of the fundamental properties of mathematics is that it is a descriptive language. If you think that is a problem then it is your problem not mathematics. You need to learn some mathematics.
 
Reality Check said:
One of the fundamental properties of mathematics is that it is a descriptive language. If you think that is a problem then it is your problem not mathematics. You need to learn some mathematics.
Click to expand...

The math describes a falling object, the flutter of a poorly designed wing. Math (in science) should describe something.

There are some people who are very good at math, but are clueless when they try to apply it to a real problem. The see the math, but they can't understand the systems it applies to.

Looking at the math, all you need, is more mass, to get the galactic velocity curves and the gravitational lensing to work.

Flanked by the obstinate observations with Einstein's and dozens of other scientist's reputation flanking you on the other side, you did the only thing you could think of: You curled up into a ball and had delusions about dark matter.

Time flows just like the Spice. Live with it.
 
DeathDart said:
The math describes a falling object, the flutter of a poorly designed wing. Math (in science) should describe something.
Click to expand...
That is what I said: One of the fundamental properties of mathematics is that it is a descriptive language. If you think that is a problem then it is your problem not mathematics. You need to learn some mathematics.

The something that the mathematics in science describes is the universe.
 
DeathDart said:
There are some people who are very good at math,
Click to expand...

You're not one of those people.

but are clueless when they try to apply it to a real problem. The see the math, but they can't understand the systems it applies to.
Click to expand...

Nor are you one of those people. You can't see the math at all, and you can't apply it to anything.

Meanwhile, the people you are calling "clueless" are ... well, pretty much everyone.

Looking at the math, all you need, is more mass, to get the galactic velocity curves and the gravitational lensing to work.
Click to expand...

Nope. It's not "more mass". I can show you hundreds of "more mass" hypotheses that (on testing) disagree with the data.

you did the only thing you could think of: You curled up into a ball and had delusions about dark matter.
Click to expand...

They're called "hypotheses". We had hypotheses about dark matter. You have hypotheses about time.

We tested (and continue to test) our hypotheses. A very small number of those hypotheses (WIMPs and axions) have passed dozens and dozens of such tests. That's science.

You have not tested your hypothesis at all. In fact, your hypothesis is a load of baloney that you're unable to state clearly, nor to compare to any data at all. That's not science.
 
The CERN result will change history much more than those eclipse photos for relativity did.


About my math
I can match your galactic velocity curves. Choose a galaxy and not the bullet cluster. Something local where the observations aren't suspect. Under 100 million light years.

Pick a gravitational lensing image and generate the math describing it. Also make it an unambiguous local measurement under 100 million light years.

Show the math describing Herbig-Haro Jets, can you even get it within a 50% error?

Show how the current velocity of nebula leads back to a time long after the Nebula exploded. No Hubble expansion allowed for an object less than 5000 years old.

Wave that MHD effect and make the observations not matching the math go away. Some of the problems with the calculations is the lack of detail (even HST has its limits) to feed the model. But when the observations are really good it still doesn't work. As long as everything has windows of variability in the order of a magnitude, you can match half the observations.

Rigorous scientific debate, is letting a bunch of assumptions slide because of what, politeness? Dark matter can't just have the properties that you want it to have. It is still mass, and you aren't going to get away with not defining it. It only exists to make flawed equations work.

How about another equation showing, how you pump up the energy of a particle to cosmic ray energies?

Give me a few days to get the equations. You know why the Einstein Field equations are so hard? Neither do I.

Often math gets really ugly when it is describing something very badly. Wrong math has a hard time coloring within the lines.
 
Last edited:
DeathDart said:
The CERN result will change history much more than those eclipse photos for relativity did.
Click to expand...
Well, when do you want to return to make us eat crow. I will give it six months. Does that sound right?

What do you think?
About my math
I can match your galactic velocity curves. Choose a galaxy and not the bullet cluster. Something local where the observations aren't suspect. Under 100 million light years.
Click to expand...
Suspect?

Suspect, suspect, we don't need no stinking suspect! :D

So what do you think makes velocity measurements at a distance suspect?

You do know that the problem of the velocity also applies to halo objects of galaxies like star clusters, you do, I hope?
 
Dancing David said:
Well, when do you want to return to make us eat crow. I will give it six months. Does that sound right?

What do you think?

Suspect?

Suspect, suspect, we don't need no stinking suspect! :D

So what do you think makes velocity measurements at a distance suspect?

You do know that the problem of the velocity also applies to halo objects of galaxies like star clusters, you do, I hope?
Click to expand...

When light has to cross half the known universe, how many phenomena will it encounter? How many do we know about?

When people use the bullet cluster what are they saying? That anything that looks like it supports their argument will work? If the universe works the way they say it does, they should find an example nearly everywhere they look. I know I can.

Local, under 100 million light years, you can pretty much detect what may cause aberrations. If you are looking for phenomena to support your argument, why would the most distant and distorted example, be the best.

You are better than me, at a lot of things. But you didn't have the anger to challenge the giants of physics, even after a lot of observations were throwing them into serious doubt. They would have been horrified to find that you didn't challenge them earlier, and save a lot of wasted effort.

I am good at seeing fundamental mistakes, because it takes a simple mind to see them.

Why, do you like eating crow? If you want to eat crow you have to bag it yourself, they are everywhere, until they see a gun.

I guess I want you to take my new and improved model and leave me in the dust. I want you to make up for the last 50 years of beating your head against the wall. I want to see solutions that are elegant, that flow, with tight variables and good predictive accuracy. I want to read papers that declare their findings, rather than mumble about being, "sort of close".
 
Actually it wouldn't be my model, since I only changed a small part of it. People have been tagging this cave wall for thousands of years, and many of them worked under very difficult conditions. Conditions that would have broken me.
 
DeathDart said:
When light has to cross half the known universe, how many phenomena will it encounter? How many do we know about?
Click to expand...
Wow, so you jump in with both feet and never even look first.

Try alpha-lyman forest.

Whats ort of encounters do you think are happening?

I also am not talking about distant objects, we can observe star clusters in the halo of our galaxy.
When people use the bullet cluster what are they saying? That anything that looks like it supports their argument will work? If the universe works the way they say it does, they should find an example nearly everywhere they look. I know I can.
Click to expand...
No you can't, explain why the star clusters that orbit in the halo of our galaxy are moving faster than they should. They are farther than your imaginary gravity/time gradient.
Local, under 100 million light years, you can pretty much detect what may cause aberrations. If you are looking for phenomena to support your argument, why would the most distant and distorted example, be the best.
Click to expand...
I think you need to reread my post to you at best.
You are better than me, at a lot of things. But you didn't have the anger to challenge the giants of physics, even after a lot of observations were throwing them into serious doubt. They would have been horrified to find that you didn't challenge them earlier, and save a lot of wasted effort.
Click to expand...
WTH?

Who the heck is that rhetorical nonsense aimed at, your ego?
I am good at seeing fundamental mistakes, because it takes a simple mind to see them.

Why, do you like eating crow? If you want to eat crow you have to bag it yourself, they are everywhere, until they see a gun.
Click to expand...
More nonsense, does it boost your self esteem? I did not insult you. I asked you a simple question, when will the results from CERN be replicated and confirmed.

You make these bold claims, will you defned them a year from now?
I guess I want you to take my new and improved model and leave me in the dust. I want you to make up for the last 50 years of beating your head against the wall. I want to see solutions that are elegant, that flow, with tight variables and good predictive accuracy. I want to read papers that declare their findings, rather than mumble about being, "sort of close".
Click to expand...

I think you are making further bizzare statements.

Address the star clusters that orbit our galaxy.
 
Last edited:
Try alpha-Lyman forest.

Try alpha-lyman forest. The frequency of light is independent of time flow in absolute space. The length of a ruler does not change because the flow of time does. This is different from relativity where the object gets shorter (?) along the axis of travel. So in any time space if you could freeze the light beam its wavelength would measure the same.

In a fast flow time space that is 10X faster, the absorption frequency of the neutral hydrogen increases by ten times. The velocity of c also increases by ten times. The absolute wavelength is time independent. So the speed of c is 10X, the atom sees 10X of absolute space in one second.

The effects cancel.

The neutral hydrogen absorption band is dependent on the velocity of the hydrogen versus the local c. If light is traveling through multiple patches of neutral hydrogen, each will absorb a notch of the total light dependent on its velocity. So if you had three distinct notches you could say the light you are seeing passed through three hydrogen clouds with X,Y, Z velocities relative to c.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom