The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

Reality Check said:
Wrong: A defintion of wavelength is velocity/frequency.

DeathDart: Why is the ICM radiation not blue shifted?
Click to expand...

Time_Space effects both time and absolute velocity (Light) the same amount.
If velocity increases the exact same amount as frequency (time flow), wavelength stays the same. If the frequency increased by 10 times and it only traveled the normal distance (the normal velocity 1X) for 1 second it would be shifted so far out I am not sure it could be recognized.

But that is how this works, relativistic shifts are independent of Time_Space.

Kinetic energy velocities (anything with mass) only increase velocity at the square root of the time flow. Relativistic compares itself to an absolute in all time frames, light. Kinetic energy is a little less straight forward with comparison to absolutes.

I hope this made sense, if it did, my monkey replacement did good.

I am assuming the ICM radiation is from deep low gravity space, and that it isn't relativistic.

I wonder what this blinking red button does?
 
Does Velocity/Frequency = wavelength?

I think you can separate Doppler from Relativistic.

Relativistic should compress or separate two absorption lines,

Doppler should just shift it up or down.
 
Belz... said:
Pretty much everywhere.



You expect people to answer as you're typing your post ? Wow, you're even more delusional than I thought.
Click to expand...

We can agree that we don't think alike. I tend to diverge and use non sequturs.

My viewpoint might even seem cartoonish.

About your use of the word delusional:
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. The Princess Bride
 
DeathDart said:
We can agree that we don't think alike. I tend to diverge and use non sequturs.

My viewpoint might even seem cartoonish.

About your use of the word delusional:
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. The Princess Bride
Click to expand...

Your physics certainly is of the Roadrunner variety, nothing to do with reality. You are not one tenth as funny as you think you are. That is another one of your delusions.
 
dafydd said:
Your physics certainly is of the Roadrunner variety, nothing to do with reality. You are not one tenth as funny as you think you are. That is another one of your delusions.
Click to expand...

With anybody else I might agree, about the sense of humor. I am twice as funny as the crickets with the glowing red eyes.

The roadrunner physics may have some problems, but the way anything could go wrong for the coyote is very much like reality.
 
DeathDart said:
Does Velocity/Frequency = wavelength?
Click to expand...

Yes.

I think you can separate Doppler from Relativistic.

Relativistic should compress or separate two absorption lines,

Doppler should just shift it up or down.
Click to expand...

No. The shift has exactly the same form for both: all frequencies are simply multiplied by the same number, regardless of what the initial frequency is.
 
Reality Check said:
Your assumption is right (the ICM is in 'deep low gravity space'). That is why your idea is wrong unless you can tell us why:
DeathDart: Why is the ICM radiation not blue shifted?
Click to expand...

Apparently I don't understand your question. If you are getting me to recant some of the earlier posts while I was still learning the problem where I thought there would be a blue shift. Is that the point you are trying to make?
 
advocatus Dei rests, advocatus diaboli commences

Too many people try to kill an Idea before it can evolve and stand up to attack.

advocatus Dei
So by my thinking this idea has passed stage 1.
It is interesting and somewhat self consistent STORY.
It has a few mathematical coincidences in its favor.

Stage 1 is defending it or modifying it to resist attack.
But it is far from proven.


advocatus diaboli
Stage 2 Is the mathematics just a coincidence?
Is it just a good STORY?
Produce the proof that separates it from other competing ideas.
This will be much more time consuming, you usually can't go to one source and say there it is. If that were true, it would already be a proven fact and I would just be parroting what is known.
 
DeathDart said:
Apparently I don't understand your question. If you are getting me to recant some of the earlier posts while I was still learning the problem where I thought there would be a blue shift. Is that the point you are trying to make?
Click to expand...
The point I am trying to make is that your idea predicts that all light from all objects will be blue shifted because at some point the light will pass through a low gravitational field. This is simple consequence of time running faster (an increase in frequency).

The ICM in galaxy clusters is from a long way away. Your idea predicts that the light from ICM is blue shifted. It is not.

So your idea is wrong unless you can answer:
DeathDart: Why is the ICM radiation not blue shifted?

There is an even nastier problem with it that I will get to as soon as you explain away this problem in an understandable way.
 
I am going to see if NASA's planetary programs could be fudging the numbers that would show local affects. And I am not saying they are lying, they are pragmatists and the planetary programs would be the best model they could generate.

It could be like the epicyles of earlier astronomy. A slight change in how gravity acts may give a clue if their model is actually two models. One they know about and the other one hidden.

Another trek through the thorn bushes of mathematics. I wish I could have kept my reptilian scales, they were nearly thorn proof:)

You can go "whack another mole" while I am gone.
 
DeathDart said:
So by my thinking this idea has passed stage 1.
It is interesting and somewhat self consistent STORY.
It has a few mathematical coincidences in its favor.
Click to expand...
You are wrong:
  1. It is an dull and inconsistent with reality story.
  2. The only 'mathematical coincidences' in it are the ones you have arbitrarily selected, e.g. the inane selection of the digits of G as an acceleration, dividing a quantity by itself to get 1 and being surprised :eye-poppi.
  3. What little actual mathematics in it has been wrong or trivial.
 
DeathDart said:
I am going to see if NASA's planetary programs could be fudging the numbers that would show local affects. And I am not saying they are lying, they are pragmatists and the planetary programs would be the best model they could generate.

It could be like the epicyles of earlier astronomy. A slight change in how gravity acts may give a clue if their model is actually two models. One they know about and the other one hidden.

Another trek through the thorn bushes of mathematics. I wish I could have kept my reptilian scales, they were nearly thorn proof:)

You can go "whack another mole" while I am gone.
Click to expand...

Have fun playing!

Next time, write all your theories out on pieces of card, using glue and glitter. They might then come in useful as decorations. That way, you'd at least get some benefit out of all the time you put into them.
 
Last edited:
DeathDart said:
I am going to see if NASA's planetary programs could be fudging the numbers that would show local affects. And I am not saying they are lying, they are pragmatists and the planetary programs would be the best model they could generate.
Click to expand...
Yes you are saying that they are lying - that is what 'fudging' means. It means to take your raw data and change it to fit something that it does not fit.

ETA:
The thing about the models that NASA use is that they work.
This is in contrast with your idea which predicts nothing about planetary motion that I have seen.
For example: What is your replacement for Newton's law of gravity? Or do you have the fantasy that you have a replacement for GR?
 
Last edited:
DeathDart said:
With anybody else I might agree, about the sense of humor. I am twice as funny as the crickets with the glowing red eyes.

The roadrunner physics may have some problems, but the way anything could go wrong for the coyote is very much like reality.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you mean by the phrase crickets with glowing red eyes and cartoons are not reality. Carry on trolling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom