The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

[DeathDart]

They do too !!!

They only cancel for people, who don't have enough imagination to create a field without canceling vectors, lines but no arrows. This is just an example of artificial mathematical constraints. Your current model restricts the way that you see gravitational fields, so that you say it cancels.

But then you use potential, (to come to the rescue), to describe why a clock slows inside a metal sphere. Its not the gravitational field, it is the potential!

Paul Atreides in Dune, could see a lot of time lines, but his predicative abilities trapped him. You created a form of math, (incorporating fundamental assumptions), which had to fragment the observed phenomena.

Your math is not all coincidence, but you are still using assumptions.

You mathematics can't describe it, so it doesn't exist. The ultimate circular argument. That is why so many observation's are kicking your delusional mathematical asses all over the universe.

Your mathematical models are wrong. Admit it!

Yes, it is a word game, called logic.

 

[Belz...]

I knew about the Dunning-Kruger effect a long time ago.

If you know about it, why can't you see it in yourself ?

They only cancel for people, who don't have enough imagination to create a field without canceling vectors, lines but no arrows.

Do you know about the Gallileo syndrome ?

 

[jsfisher]

They only cancel for people, who don't have enough imagination to create a field without canceling vectors, lines but no arrows. This is just an example of artificial mathematical constraints. Your current model restricts the way that you see gravitational fields, so that you say it cancels.

But then you use potential, (to come to the rescue), to describe why a clock slows inside a metal sphere. Its not the gravitational field, it is the potential!

Paul Atreides in Dune, could see a lot of time lines, but his predicative abilities trapped him. You created a form of math, (incorporating fundamental assumptions), which had to fragment the observed phenomena.

Your math is not all coincidence, but you are still using assumptions.

You mathematics can't describe it, so it doesn't exist. The ultimate circular argument. That is why so many observation's are kicking your delusional mathematical asses all over the universe.

Your mathematical models are wrong. Admit it!

Yes, it is a word game, called logic.

Wow. You confuse two terms in Physics, gravitational field vs potential, and this is your post. Everyone is wrong except you. No, that's not logic.

 

[sol invictus]

They only cancel for people, who don't have enough imagination to create a field without canceling vectors, lines but no arrows. This is just an example of artificial mathematical constraints. Your current model restricts the way that you see gravitational fields, so that you say it cancels.

But then you use potential, (to come to the rescue), to describe why a clock slows inside a metal sphere. Its not the gravitational field, it is the potential!

:facepalm:

You can derive the field from the potential, DD, and the potential from the field (up to a constant). They are mathematically related in a rather simple way. The fact that the field cancels to zero inside a spherical shell is not in conflict with the fact that clocks run slow inside the shell relative to outside.

Your mathematical models are wrong. Admit it!

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[MattusMaximus]

They only cancel for people, who don't have enough imagination to create a field without canceling vectors, lines but no arrows. This is just an example of artificial mathematical constraints. Your current model restricts the way that you see gravitational fields, so that you say it cancels.

So, DD, you're saying that regions of gravitational stability in space, where the gravitational forces effectively cancel out (at least in the local frame of reference), such as at Lagrange points, are fictional?

Amazing

ETA: To everyone else, I know that I'm presenting a simplified picture of Lagrange points; I'm just trying to get this basic idea (that gravitational forces can cancel) through to DD.

 

[DeathDart]

Your mathematical models didn't match observation, so instead of changing your models, you came up dark matter.

Matter whose existence can only be inferred because it is undetectable in the lab.

Let me see if I got this right.

I come up with a correction to space that gets rid of dark matter, but it means that you accept that you had included an assumption (time has a limit of one) in your current model.

You prefer dark matter, still!

Oh, yes the bullet cluster. Which could also represent the optical effects of time space, and strengthen my argument. It is a disrupted cluster that isn't common. You haven't realized that time lensing, as a consequence of faster time, could also cause it. Our glass lenses are modeled as "time" lenses.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your mathematical models didn't match observation, so instead of changing your models, you came up dark matter.

That's a change in the model, DD.

Let me see if I got this right.

I come up with a correction to space that gets rid of dark matter, but it means that you accept that you had included an assumption (time has a limit of one) in your current model.

You prefer dark matter, still!

You came up with a "correction" that disagrees radically with many observations, hasn't been shown to actually agree with precise terrestrial tests of gravitational time dilation, and even breaks energy conservation. Why should anyone accept your idea?

 

[dafydd]

Your mathematical models didn't match observation, so instead of changing your models, you came up dark matter.

Matter whose existence can only be inferred because it is undetectable in the lab.

Let me see if I got this right.

I come up with a correction to space that gets rid of dark matter, but it means that you accept that you had included an assumption (time has a limit of one) in your current model.

You prefer dark matter, still!

Oh, yes the bullet cluster. Which could also represent the optical effects of time space, and strengthen my argument. It is a disrupted cluster that isn't common. You haven't realized that time lensing, as a consequence of faster time, could also cause it. Our glass lenses are modeled as "time" lenses.

You keep forgetting that there are people here who know what they are talking about when it comes to this subject. Carry on though,I'm learning even if you are not.

 

[sol invictus]

I come up with a correction to space that gets rid of dark matter, but it means that you accept that you had included an assumption (time has a limit of one) in your current model.

You prefer dark matter, still!

That's for three reasons:

1) you haven't shown your model gets rid of DM, and

2) more importantly, you haven't shown your model is consistent with everything else we know. Instead, we've pointed out a huge problem with it - that it will shift spectral lines in a way that's totally inconsistent with data - and you failed to respond.

3) you don't have a model (just some vague words)

 

[calcmandan]

While researching a previous theory that included a term that would have a mass create alternating negative (Normal gravity) and positive (matter repelling gravity) waves like the frozen ripples of a pond. I thought that this would explain the center bar in galaxies and the ripples. Except that gravitational fields do no not have a vector that can be cancelled out.

The math was interesting and it kind of answered the Pioneer Anomalies. Except no gravity vector, no chance for a positive field, that was several months work disappearing into the depths.

I am sure the pioneer anomaly has been thoroughly explained using a rather rudimentary graphic. Correct me if I'm wrong.


-- Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities

 

[Reality Check]

Oh, yes the bullet cluster. Which could also represent the optical effects of time space, and strengthen my argument. It is a disrupted cluster that isn't common. You haven't realized that time lensing, as a consequence of faster time, could also cause it. Our glass lenses are modeled as "time" lenses.

You seem to be ignorant abut the Bullet Cluster observation and what it means so I will try to explain it to you.
The Bullet Cluster is actually 2 colliding galaxy clusters. The intracluster medium (the gas between the galaxies) is 80-95% of the mass in a cluster. When 2 bodies of gas collide, the atoms interact electromagnetically (they collide) so that the gas slows down and heats up. If we look at it in X-rays then we can see the emission from the gas that is colliding. It forms quite distinctive shock waves.

The X-ray emission thus tells us where we will have most of the matter of the cluster. The center of mass of the Bullet Cluster should be within the hot gas. The X-rays emission is in the first image in the Wikipedia article. Most of the mass of the cluster should be in the blue and red areas of that image.

Gravitational lensing gives us a technique to directly measure the distribution of matter in the cluster. But this shows that most of the mass of the cluster is in 2 blobs that are either side of the hot gas. These blobs do not show up in any optical images (they are dark).

What has happened is that most of the intracluster medium (ICM) in the two clusters has passed through the other cluster without colliding and so heating up. The calculations for normal matter show that any atom in the ICM must collide at least 3,000,000 times as it passes through the other cluster. Thus most of the ICM in the Bullet Cluster is not normal matter!

The conclusion is that the Bullet Cluster is mostly made up of some 'stuff' that

• has mass (is matter).
• interacts weakly or not at all through EM forces with matter, i.e. is dark.

We call this dark matter.

Another bit of evidence (one of many!) along the same line is the use of gravitational lensing to map the density of matter inside a galaxy cluster. What we expect to see are spikes in density for the galaxies and a fairly flat and small background density for the ICM. The ICM density should be a bit bigger at the center of the cluster.
What we actually measure is

• The background density is much bigger than explained by the ICM.
• There is a large increase in density as you approach the cluster center. This is bigger than predicted for a gas like the ICM but matches what you expect from a 'gas' that only interacts with gravity.

 

[Reality Check]

The math was interesting and it kind of answered the Pioneer Anomalies.

I will point out that Pioneer Anomaly has been explained as thermal radiation pressure. See Pioneer Anomaly Solved By 1970s Computer Graphics Technique for a good description.

 

[DeathDart]

Y

• has mass (is matter).
• interacts weakly or not at all through EM forces with matter, i.e. is dark.

We call this dark matter.

Another bit of evidence (one of many!) along the same line is the use of gravitational lensing to map the density of matter inside a galaxy cluster. What we expect to see are spikes in density for the galaxies and a fairly flat and small background density for the ICM. The ICM density should be a bit bigger at the center of the cluster.
What we actually measure is

• The background density is much bigger than explained by the ICM.
• There is a large increase in density as you approach the cluster center. This is bigger than predicted for a gas like the ICM but matches what you expect from a 'gas' that only interacts with gravity.

Let me play Hemlock Stones, first define a problem in detail.

So you use gravitational lensing and you measure greater lensing farther away from the visible components of matter (In a galaxy) than your gravitational models predict?

Does this happen with all galaxies?
Does it happen with just spiral galaxies or globular clusters?

 

[Complexity]

Let me play Hemlock Stones, first define a problem in detail.

Please stop playing.

This isn't fun, and you aren't prepared to engage in the discussion.

You also aren't willing to learn anything.

 

[DeathDart]

I am sure the pioneer anomaly has been thoroughly explained using a rather rudimentary graphic. Correct me if I'm wrong.


-- Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities

This was an unrelated (earlier theory) theory that I shot down. This was because I could not define gravity with a vector that would cancel. Without canceling fields, it would not work. That is why I knew that the (field or potential) does not cancel between two masses. If you define it as having a vector then it would cancel.

The Pioneer Anomaly (at this time) appears to be an artifact.

But you figured out how to have your cake, and eat it too. Vectors yes, Cancelling yes, Time Dilation yes. WTF

 

[Reality Check]

So you use gravitational lensing and you measure greater lensing farther away from the visible components of matter (In a galaxy) than your gravitational models predict?

No.
What you do is measure the lensing in a galaxy cluster and then change the distribution of matter into your model until the model matches the measurements.
The "gravitational models' is the well tested general relativity.

You do that for several colliding galaxy clusters (see my signature) and in each case you see that there is matter that is dark. We call that dark matter.

Does this happen with all galaxies?
Does it happen with just spiral galaxies or globular clusters?

Yes. No.

This is all part of the observational evidence for dark matter that you are ignoring.

 

[DeathDart]

Please stop playing.

This isn't fun, and you aren't prepared to engage in the discussion.

You also aren't willing to learn anything.

If you want dark matter to enter this discussion, I am not going to let you assume that it is correct. At this point I am putting Time_Space against Dark Matter

The reason I ask about the lensing and galaxy types, is that time could also do the lensing. Dependent on what the shortest path would be through a theoretical Time_Space Lens. Is a Time_Space lens convex or concave. Faster time is found farther away from a mass, so this suggests to me that it is concave, it concentrates or pulls the light in. The shorter wavelength is on the inside.

Now the problem is defining when and where a theoretical Time_Space lens could bend light.

A galaxy with a clean well marked edge, will theoretically have a certain type of lensing that is strong, but remains fairly close to the visible galaxy.

A galaxy with a very ragged edge, and a lot of outliers, will cover a bigger area, with Time_Space lensing going out to the outliers.

Apples and Oranges math.

So the questions about the galaxies is not moot.

 

[Complexity]

This was an unrelated (earlier theory) theory that I shot down. This was because I could not define gravity with a vector that would cancel. Without canceling fields, it would not work. That is why I knew that the (field or potential) does not cancel between two masses. If you define it as having a vector then it would cancel.

The Pioneer Anomaly (at this time) appears to be an artifact.

But you figured out how to have your cake, and eat it too. Vectors yes, Cancelling yes, Time Dilation yes. WTF

Just because you can't figure out to do something doesn't mean it can't be done.

 

[DeathDart]

No.
What you do is measure the lensing in a galaxy cluster and then change the distribution of matter into your model until the model matches the measurements.
The "gravitational models' is the well tested general relativity.

You do that for several colliding galaxy clusters (see my signature) and in each case you see that there is matter that is dark. We call that dark matter.


Yes. No.

This is all part of the observational evidence for dark matter that you are ignoring.

So if you assume that all the lensing is due to gravity, then you have too little visible mass.

So Time_Space lensing doesn't even enter the picture.

So I can explain the galactic velocity curve as time (and inertial mass) changing in a weak gravitational field AND I can create a Time_Space lens to bend light around galaxies.

Amazing what changing a 1 to infinity will do.

 

[Reality Check]

If The reason I ask about the lensing and galaxy types, is that time could also do the lensing. Dependent on what the shortest path would be through a theoretical Time_Space Lens.

Time alone cannot do the lensing becasue time cannot change the path of a light ray. You need curved space-time to create do the lensing.

"Time_Space" is some fantasy of yours with no backing in reality.
What is real is space-time as used in General Relativity becuase that corresponds with reality (tests of general relatvity).