The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

Every moment he spends writing his 'paper' is a moment that he isn't posting here.

I am not the Chef.

My name won't lead.

Others held the door open, with their feet, and their careers.

All the while the "Dark Matter" Heathens tried to slam the door using mob psychology, but not stronger logic.

If It was up to me, I'd pour boiling oil on them.

For some reason, it is never up to me.
 
Anybody got a galactic cluster they want analyzed?

I bored, and the government took my plutonium. Nuclear explosives are a legitimate hobby.

Give me a problem, and maybe save the world.
 
It is kinetically unstable for all those stars to have the same velocity AND kinetic energy, what we see is impossible without either something like MOND or Time_space.
That is wrong. Nothing ever has the same velocity and kinetic energy. They are different things.
Kinetic energy = 1/2 m*v^2.

That X-Ray picture of the Bullet Cluster took a mere 140 hr exposure time from Chandra. How far away is the Bullet Cluster? A difficult noisy measurement from that distance.
Wow - you really cannot do any of your own research or even click on a link and read. Here is is again: Bullet Cluster
An easy, exact taking of an image from any distance.

We call it photon counting, I wonder why that is?
You call it photon counting.
Astronomers call it taking an image.
 
Anybody got a galactic cluster they want analyzed?
Knock yourself out: Bullet Cluster

ETA
Or how about MACSJ0025.4-1222 which is another "cluster showing a clear separation between dark and ordinary matter".
As the two clusters that formed MACSJ0025 (each almost a whopping million billion times the mass of the Sun) merged at speeds of millions of miles per hour, the hot gas in each cluster collided and slowed down, but the dark matter did not. The separation between the material shown in pink and blue therefore provides direct evidence for dark matter and supports the view that dark matter particles interact with each other only very weakly or not at all, apart from the pull of gravity.
 
Last edited:
It is kinetically unstable for all those stars to have the same velocity AND kinetic energy, what we see is impossible without either something like MOND or Time_space.

Huh?

You didn't think a constant rotation curve means that all stars past a certain radius have the same velocity, did you? Surely someone that thinks they can "solve" this "problem" knows enough not to make such an ignorant mistake?
 
Sushi

Can you say 'DeathDart is writing gibberish in this thread?

Ok, first question, are you familiar with the galactic velocity curve anomaly.

From the viewpoint of Newtonian physics, orbits farther out ALWAYS have lower velocities.

Under Newtonian physics two objects with the same velocity, and in the same orbital plane will share that same orbit, until they crash (usually).

Stars orbiting within regions with less than approx 6.674E-11ms^2 gravitational fields tend to have the same velocity i.e. the flat velocity curve.

You seem to be blaming the character "Nibbler" from the T.V.show "Futurama" as the creator of "Dark Matter" which binds the universe together (in a way, that is way worse than cat litter).

So what evidence supports the existence of "Dark Matter", as in direct detection of it.

Did a particle cannon fail to destroy its target, because the particle beam hit a dark matter cloud, which came out of no where. If this anomaly had just recently appeared, I would give you the benefit of the doubt. Because a few wild gooses can either be dinner, or a learning experience. It is something else, when you can't confirm it's existence going on 3 decades. This is starting to sound like the promise of Hot Fusion.

Since you seem to have forgotten the basics of kinetics, or just wave your hand, and say it is not relevant to the galactic velocity curve anomaly, please explain why?

How do objects traveling at the same velocity avoid colliding while orbiting a galaxy. If velocity equals kinetic energy, then every galaxy should be a train wreck.

Or at least every galaxy without "Dark Matter", should be a train wreck.

So if I suggest that in apparently empty space, that the flow of time is infinite.

And I argue that objects traveling at the same velocity DO NOT have a train wreck, since they no longer have the same inertial mass.

They do have the same velocity, but they do not have the same kinetic energy.

Are there any nearby examples of flat velocity curves, anywhere in the visible solar system. It happens over there, but not here. We have never seen a variance of Newtonian gravity by "Dark Matter" in this solar system.
Even if it had happened, even when we were not even around yet. Wait, we would not be around, if it had happened. No history of "Dark Matter"in this solar system EVER.

When equal masses travel at the same velocity, how can their inertial mass be different? The answer is in a simple unexamined assumption that will turn you into a pillar of salt if you look at it.

Time
 
Huh?

You didn't think a constant rotation curve means that all stars past a certain radius have the same velocity, did you? Surely someone that thinks they can "solve" this "problem" knows enough not to make such an ignorant mistake?

Don't try that!

It is the same velocity, not the same rotation speed.

Heck, some of the talent around here, wouldn't even rate as good minions.
 
Ok, first question, are you familiar with the galactic velocity curve anomaly.

From the viewpoint of Newtonian physics, orbits farther out ALWAYS have lower velocities.

This is simply false. It depends entirely on the mass distribution. With the correct mass distribution, then Newtonian mechanics will produce faster orbits at larger radii.

At every turn, you reveal your ignorance of basic physics.

So what evidence supports the existence of "Dark Matter", as in direct detection of it.

Do you believe in neutrinos?

Neutrinos are dark matter.

How do objects traveling at the same velocity avoid colliding while orbiting a galaxy. If velocity equals kinetic energy, then every galaxy should be a train wreck.

What's the spacing between stars? What are their typical relative velocities? I'll let you track down numbers, if you care to, but in short, the spacing is very large, and the relative velocities are not. Which means that the time scale for collisions is really, really, really long. It's a rare event. Most stars will just pass by each other, because they're so tiny compared to the typical interstellar distance. If you waited long enough, then yes, galaxies are train wrecks. But "long enough" is pretty damned long.

Again, this is really basic physics. And you're completely ignorant of it.
 
The last time I dealt with this many **** ***** it was at the F.B.I. Are you sure that none of you work for the Bureau?

Edited, breach of rule 10.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

So now you're accusing your detractors of working for The Man ?

Add paranoia to delusion.

Why can't you just admit that you're wrong ? It'll earn you a ton of respect, trust me.
 
This is simply false. It depends entirely on the mass distribution. With the correct mass distribution, then Newtonian mechanics will produce faster orbits at larger radii.

At every turn, you reveal your ignorance of basic physics.
Do you believe in neutrinos?
Neutrinos are dark matter.
What's the spacing between stars? What are their typical relative velocities? I'll let you track down numbers, if you care to, but in short, the spacing is very large, and the relative velocities are not. Which means that the time scale for collisions is really, really, really long. It's a rare event. Most stars will just pass by each other, because they're so tiny compared to the typical interstellar distance. If you waited long enough, then yes, galaxies are train wrecks. But "long enough" is pretty damned long.

Again, this is really basic physics. And you're completely ignorant of it.

Non Visible Mass Distribution, how convenient. You sure set the bar low for the level of proof you need for "Dark Matter".

OH, so you are competing for the Nobel, you proved that neutrinos have MASS.

Neutrinos are not fixed objects that you can herd together.

So by not accepting your group think delusions, and by rejecting membership in the "Dark Matter" cult, I am ignorant?

So how many hours of science did you take? Probably the minimum for whatever degree you have.
 
So now you're accusing your detractors of working for The Man ?

Add paranoia to delusion.

Why can't you just admit that you're wrong ? It'll earn you a ton of respect, trust me.

I was just noting that some of my detractors, have the same psychological pathologies, commonly found in the bureau.

Oh, respect for being the nice doggy. I will keep my self respect as a lone wolf, rather than, a slobbering minion.

I am close, so IF I am wrong, the truth won't be too far away.
 
OH, so you are competing for the Nobel, you proved that neutrinos have MASS.

I have not. Others already have.

So by not accepting your group think delusions, and by rejecting membership in the "Dark Matter" cult, I am ignorant?

You are ignorant because you can't even do the most basic tasks in physics on your own: you can't even do simple dimensional analysis. You needed someone to hold your hand and walk you through units, for cryin' out loud!

So how many hours of science did you take? Probably the minimum for whatever degree you have.

You really don't want to go down this road. You will lose, and lose badly. There are people here with Ph.D.'s in physics. If, as I suspect, you have little to no formal education in physics, then this line of argument is an obvious loser for you. And if you do, then it's actually even worse for you, because it means you've learned nothing.
 
I was just noting that some of my detractors, have the same psychological pathologies, commonly found in the bureau.

Oh, respect for being the nice doggy. I will keep my self respect as a lone wolf, rather than, a slobbering minion.

I am close, so IF I am wrong, the truth won't be too far away.

Speaking of psychological pathologies. . .
 

Back
Top Bottom