# Thread: Finite Theory of the Universe, Dark Matter Disproof and Faster-Than-Light Speed

1. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
1,420
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Fantasies about clocks does not make FT conserve energy, philippeb8. There is no confusion when I did not know about this fantasy. But I will make the example clearer:
Alice is 1 million light years from a galaxy and measures the orbital velocity of a star in it. Alice knows the mass of the star. She works out the kinetic energy of that star.
Bob is 1 billion light years from the same galaxy and measures the orbital velocity of the same star. According to your FT equation Bob will get a different orbital velocity from Alice. Bob knows the mass of the star. He works out the kinetic energy of that star.
Alice and Bob are at rest with respect to each other and at the same gravitational potential - no time dilation affects their clocks.
Alice and Bob conclude that the kinetic energy changes with distance from the star. Kinetic energy is not conserved. Everything else is the same so energy is not conserved.

IF??: If Alice and Bob's clocks differ by some FT magic then show your derivation of the equations to determine that difference and apply it to this Alice and Bob. What about an Alice and Bob with atomic clocks separated by the width of the Earth? How would this effect the test of general relativity that have been done?
First and foremost, I would like to answer this question. I made a mistake and the equation should be:

So now the kinetic energy will be the same for both Bob and Alice.
Last edited by philippeb8; 2015-Oct-23 at 10:40 PM.

2. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
1,420
Quickly like that I get 72 m/s but I don't have time to review the result.

3. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
1,420
On this October 23rd, 2015,

It’s been an honor to be among such accomplished individuals and to be able to present my perspective before you all, thank you!

Sincerely,
philippeb8
Last edited by philippeb8; 2015-Oct-24 at 12:04 AM.

4. And that seems like a good note to close this thread on.

5. After moderator discussion, this thread is reopened per OP request.

6. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
1,420
Finite Theory 2018

Definition 1

A 'local reference frame' moves coherently with the source of the local gravitational field where the latter is in turn defined to be the strongest gravitational acceleration. For example, if the observer and the observed object are nearby a planet then the local reference frame is set on the planet's surface, rotating with the same angular speed. Note that this can be a non-inertial frame.

Definition 2

The kinetic energy is defined as (classical definition), with being the speed of the object with respect to the observer.

Hypothesis 1

The speed of light in free space has value for any observer at rest relative to the local reference frame. However, observers in relative motion with respect to this frame will not measure the same value for .

Hypothesis 2

The time dilation experienced by an object moving with respect to an observer at rest relative to the local reference frame is directly proportional to the ratio between the kinetic energy and the maximum kinetic energy of the object, where the latter is the case when its speed equals .

Kinematical Time Dilation

Fudge Factor of the Solar System

Bending of Light

Deflection Angle

Perihelion Precession

Elliptical Orbit

Time Dilation Cancellation Altitude

Fudge Factor of the Visible Universe

Fudge Factor of the Invisible Universe

Mass of the Invisible Universe

Mass of the Invisible Universe (Directly Based on Light Bending)

Position of the Center of the Universe (Small Scales)

Velocity of the Universe (Large Scales)

Time Dilation / Contraction Factor of the Whole Universe (Inside the Sphere)

Time Dilation / Contraction Factor of the Whole Universe (Outside the Sphere)

Time Dilation / Contraction Factor of the Whole Universe

Galactic Rotation Curve (Inside the Sphere)

Galactic Rotation Curve (Outside the Sphere)

Galactic Rotation Curve

7. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
1,420
Given the restricted period of time, I would like to start discussing the GRC because this is the equation I came up with on my own last week.
Last edited by philippeb8; 2018-Oct-16 at 02:05 AM.

8. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
4,686
Originally Posted by philippeb8
Given the restricted period of time, I would like to start discussing the GRC because this is the equation I came up with on my own last week.
Time restriction ??

9. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
1,420
Originally Posted by John Mendenhall
Time restriction ??
30 days and then it's over.

10. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
4,686
Originally Posted by philippeb8
30 days and then it's over.
Got it. Normal time period. Thanks.
Last edited by John Mendenhall; 2018-Oct-17 at 01:44 AM.

11. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
3,914
Originally Posted by philippeb8
...
Galactic Rotation Curve
Since you want to discuss the Galactic Rotation Curve first then the discussion may be short.
Look at a measured galaxy rotation curve for M 33. There is no sharp peak. There are no wiggles. Your theory fails to match the data. Thus your theory is still wrong.

The same problem as pointed out on 2015-Oct-21:
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Which reminds me
philippeb8: FT fails to calculate the rotation curve of the Milky Way and is invalid.
"Position of the Center of the Universe" says that your theory is even more wrong because the universe does not have a center. Ditto for "Velocity of the Universe" (the universe is not moving through anything just like it is not expanding into anything).
"Fudge Factor of the Solar System" says your theory still has that bad flaw of a fudge factor you can basically make anything.

Equations appearing from nowhere, not described and nonstandard, e.g. what is that "Elliptical Orbit" equation, how was it derived, and how does it relate to the well tested Newtonian orbit?
Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Oct-16 at 05:13 AM.

12. Originally Posted by philippeb8
Given the restricted period of time, I would like to start discussing the GRC because this is the equation I came up with on my own last week.
Seems impossible, as you just dump your equations here, without any explanation how you got to your GRC equation. Derivations maybe?

13. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
1,420
Originally Posted by tusenfem
Seems impossible, as you just dump your equations here, without any explanation how you got to your GRC equation. Derivations maybe?
Basically, I'm adding the angular velocity to the orbital velocity because the galaxy is on a spinning frame of reference. Note that the time dilation / contraction is negligible here.

Mass of the Bulge of the Milky Way

Angular Velocity of the Bulge of the Milky Way

Radius of the Bulge of the Milky Way

Orbital Velocity (Inside the Sphere)

Orbital Velocity (Outside the Sphere)

Orbital Velocity

Angular Velocity (Inside & Outside the Sphere)

Angular Velocity

Resulting Galactic Rotation Curve

Resulting Galactic Rotation Curve - Non-Perpendicular Stars Between the Arms

Observations

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...darkmatter.htm

14. how can you add angular velocity (rad/s) to orbital velocity (m/s) ?
and shouldn't angular velocity and orbital orbital be related?
this just does not make sense to my flu-influenced brain

15. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
1,420
Originally Posted by tusenfem
how can you add angular velocity (rad/s) to orbital velocity (m/s) ?
and shouldn't angular velocity and orbital orbital be related?
this just does not make sense to my flu-influenced brain
Sorry I meant to add the tangential velocity of the spinning galaxy to the orbital velocity.

The angular velocity and the orbital velocity are independent. The former is defined by the rotation of the bulge and the latter is defined the rotation around the bulge.

It has to be noted that the mass of the bulge of the Milky Way cannot be greater than 5e40 kg. That’s because that’s what defines the amplitude of the graph and having the galaxy at rest the peak already reaches 250 km/s for the observed velocity of the stars.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

16. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
3,914
You seem to have missed my post so far, philippeb8, thus a formal question:
Please explain why deriving incorrect galaxy oration curves does not invalidate your theory.

17. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
1,420
Originally Posted by Reality Check
You seem to have missed my post so far, philippeb8, thus a formal question:
Please explain why deriving incorrect galaxy oration curves does not invalidate your theory.
Sorry but replying to the mods takes precedence.

Can you see the similarities between these two graphs?

18. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
1,420
Originally Posted by Reality Check
"Position of the Center of the Universe" says that your theory is even more wrong because the universe does not have a center. Ditto for "Velocity of the Universe" (the universe is not moving through anything just like it is not expanding into anything).
"Because Einstein said so" is not a valid scientific argument.

"Fudge Factor of the Solar System" says your theory still has that bad flaw of a fudge factor you can basically make anything.
The fudge factor is just a simplification but you can see when I find the mass of the invisible universe directly based on the light bending that the fudge factor is not used.

Equations appearing from nowhere, not described and nonstandard, e.g. what is that "Elliptical Orbit" equation, how was it derived, and how does it relate to the well tested Newtonian orbit?
The effective speed is what you get when you travel close to the Sun because time dilates so the effective speed changes and alters the orbit.

19. Originally Posted by philippeb8
"Because Einstein said so" is not a valid scientific argument.
Einstein didn't just say so, he showed so and matched predictions and observations.

The effective speed is what you get when you travel close to the Sun because time dilates so the effective speed changes and alters the orbit.
Pretty sure time dilation does not change objective speeds. It takes the same time to travel the same distances.

20. Originally Posted by philippeb8
Sorry but replying to the mods takes precedence.
tusenfem wasn't posting as a moderator, his post was in black. And if he was posting as a moderator, you shouldn't be responding in thread.

21. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
1,420
Originally Posted by Noclevername
Einstein didn't just say so, he showed so and matched predictions and observations.
Nobody can tell whether the visible universe has momentum or not except from the predictions of FT.

Pretty sure time dilation does not change objective speeds. It takes the same time to travel the same distances.
GR itself uses both time dilation and space contraction to measure the perihelion precession. FT simply uses time dilation with a different solar system fudge factor.

That fudge factor, namely kappa in GR, was adjusted so that GR matches the observations. This same kappa was later used to predict the light bending.

FT says it's impossible to predict the light bending without knowing the perihelion precession first.

22. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
3,914
Originally Posted by philippeb8
"Because Einstein said so" is not a valid scientific argument....
I did not write that. GR says that and that is a valid scientific argument.

23. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
3,914
Originally Posted by philippeb8
Can you see the similarities between these two graphs?
Yes. I also see the differences: x axis labels are different, a very sharp peak in one that is not in the other, the waves in your graph do not match the ones in the other graph. IOW, Plotted separately they look like different curves and invalidate your theory.

The second graph is from Dark Matter: another basic part of galaxies!! that you cited in a previous post. An issue is that the web page does not state that this is the measured galaxy rotation curve for the Milky Way. It is an figure from a book. It could be an illustration or actual data. Rotation Curve of the Milky Way out to ∼ 200 kpc suggests that the figure is an sketch of the data which is obvious in hindsight from the lack of error bars.

What you need to do is plot your theoretical curve against actual data. Do it in the same graph so that everyone can see whether they match.

24. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
1,420
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Yes. I also see the differences: x axis labels are different, a very sharp peak in one that is not in the other, the waves in your graph do not match the ones in the other graph. IOW, Plotted separately they look like different curves and invalidate your theory.
My curve is theoretical but the peak should obviously be curved. As for the sine wave I might need to multiply by 2 to match the distance between the arms but I didn't give any importance to this wave.

The second graph is from Dark Matter: another basic part of galaxies!! that you cited in a previous post. An issue is that the web page does not state that this is the measured galaxy rotation curve for the Milky Way. It is an figure from a book. It could be an illustration or actual data. Rotation Curve of the Milky Way out to ∼ 200 kpc suggests that the figure is an sketch of the data which is obvious in hindsight from the lack of error bars.

What you need to do is plot your theoretical curve against actual data. Do it in the same graph so that everyone can see whether they match.
Also it's better I match the Milky Way than any other galaxy because we have an estimate of its mass based on luminosity and the tangential speed of the Sun. But the pattern will remain the same.

25. Originally Posted by philippeb8
Nobody can tell whether the visible universe has momentum or not except from the predictions of FT.
Momentum relative to what?

GR itself uses both time dilation and space contraction to measure the perihelion precession. FT simply uses time dilation with a different solar system fudge factor.

That fudge factor, namely kappa in GR, was adjusted so that GR matches the observations. This same kappa was later used to predict the light bending.

FT says it's impossible to predict the light bending without knowing the perihelion precession first.
I don't know enough to answer this argument.

26. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
1,420
Originally Posted by Noclevername
Momentum relative to what?
Good question. Relative to a greater invisible universe encompassing the visible one.

We see the galaxies getting away from us because the universe is traveling at a high velocity and the time dilation / contraction factor is:
- speeding up galaxies ahead of us
- speeding ourselves relative to the galaxies behind us

So we have the impression that all galaxies are traveling away from us and that there must be some dark energy to explain the expansion of the universe.

27. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
3,914
Originally Posted by philippeb8
The effective speed....
I did not ask about any "effective speed". Your post has a "Elliptical Orbit" equation. Mainstream orbital mechanics has equations for elliptical orbits, starting with the mathematic definition of an ellipse, with standard symbols that everyone knows.
You have an equation that
• Appears from nowhere.
• Is not described.

Thus my questions. "What is that "Elliptical Orbit" equation?" is probably answered. You have a preceding "Perihelion Precession" equation with no perihelion precession. The "Elliptical Orbit" equation looks like you plugging in your fudge factor into the standard result from GR that you are claiming is wrong.

28. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
3,914
Originally Posted by philippeb8
My curve is theoretical but the peak should obviously be curved. ...
What you imagine or speculate does not change what you have presented - two graphs that look different and a graph that is maybe not the measured rotation curve of the Milky Way.

29. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
1,420
Originally Posted by Reality Check
I did not ask about any "effective speed". Your post has a "Elliptical Orbit" equation. Mainstream orbital mechanics has equations for elliptical orbits, starting with the mathematic definition of an ellipse, with standard symbols that everyone knows.
You have an equation that
• Appears from nowhere.
• Is not described.

Thus my questions. "What is that "Elliptical Orbit" equation?" is probably answered. You have a preceding "Perihelion Precession" equation with no perihelion precession. The "Elliptical Orbit" equation looks like you plugging in your fudge factor into the standard result from GR that you are claiming is wrong.
It's based on this paper:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0a2...b595fb6268.pdf

30. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2011
Posts
1,420
Originally Posted by Reality Check
What you imagine or speculate does not change what you have presented - two graphs that look different and a graph that is maybe not the measured rotation curve of the Milky Way.
It's more within the error range of the observations than with that dark matter halo that makes no sense physically and theoretically.