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.
And that seems like a good note to close this thread on.
After moderator discussion, this thread is reopened per OP request.
◄Forum Rules► ◄FAQ► ◄ATM Forum Advice► ◄Conspiracy Advice►
Click to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.
Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)
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
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.
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:
"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.
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC
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
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
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC
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
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.
"Because Einstein said so" is not a valid scientific argument.
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."Fudge Factor of the Solar System" says your theory still has that bad flaw of a fudge factor you can basically make anything.
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.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?
Einstein didn't just say so, he showed so and matched predictions and observations.
Pretty sure time dilation does not change objective speeds. It takes the same time to travel the same distances.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.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
Nobody can tell whether the visible universe has momentum or not except from the predictions of FT.
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.Pretty sure time dilation does not change objective speeds. It takes the same time to travel the same distances.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Momentum relative to what?
I don't know enough to answer this argument.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'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
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.
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