Page 32 of 43 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast
Results 931 to 960 of 1262

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

  1. #931
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    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. #932
    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. #933
    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. #934
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,018
    And that seems like a good note to close this thread on.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  5. #935
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,324
    After moderator discussion, this thread is reopened per OP request.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png 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. ó Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  6. #936
    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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	curvature.png 
Views:	15 
Size:	95.7 KB 
ID:	23642

    Galactic Rotation Curve (Inside the Sphere)



    Galactic Rotation Curve (Outside the Sphere)



    Galactic Rotation Curve

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	galactic_rotation_curve-1.png 
Views:	14 
Size:	12.1 KB 
ID:	23643

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	galactic_rotation_curve-2.png 
Views:	14 
Size:	13.4 KB 
ID:	23644

  7. #937
    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. #938
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,686
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    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. #939
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Time restriction ??
    30 days and then it's over.

  10. #940
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,686
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    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. #941
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,914
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    ...
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    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. #942
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,102
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    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?
    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

  13. #943
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	galactic_rotation_curve-3.png 
Views:	22 
Size:	12.6 KB 
ID:	23645

    Angular Velocity (Inside & Outside the Sphere)



    Angular Velocity

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	galactic_rotation_curve-4.png 
Views:	21 
Size:	16.4 KB 
ID:	23647

    Resulting Galactic Rotation Curve

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	galactic_rotation_curve-1.png 
Views:	19 
Size:	12.1 KB 
ID:	23649

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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	galactic_rotation_curve-2.png 
Views:	20 
Size:	13.4 KB 
ID:	23651

    Observations

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

  14. #944
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,102
    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

  15. #945
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    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. Thatís because thatís 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. #946
    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. #947
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    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?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	galactic_rotation_curve-2.png 
Views:	22 
Size:	13.4 KB 
ID:	23653

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	galaxrota.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	79.4 KB 
ID:	23654

  18. #948
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    "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. #949
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,536
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    "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.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  20. #950
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,018
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    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.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  21. #951
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    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. #952
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,914
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    "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. #953
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,914
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    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. #954
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    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. #955
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,536
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    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.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  26. #956
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    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. #957
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,914
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    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. #958
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,914
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    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. #959
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    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. #960
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2012-Jul-21, 08:32 PM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2011-Jul-02, 11:12 PM
  3. Can Dark Matter go Faster than Light?
    By squidworth in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2009-Nov-13, 08:43 PM
  4. Did the universe expand faster than the speed of light?
    By I Am That I Am in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 2009-Sep-02, 05:40 PM
  5. Theory on dark matter and the universe.
    By Sepmann in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2006-Jun-13, 04:55 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •