Page 33 of 43 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast
Results 961 to 990 of 1262

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

  1. #961
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,908
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    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.
    Obviously you are ignoring the galaxy rotation curve of the M 33 galaxy yet again which does not fit your pattern. It has no peak at all. It has no waves.
    Other galaxies have measured masses. Their masses are possibly better measured than the Milky Way's mass. We are inside the Milky Way. Dust and gas hides parts from us.

    A suggestion: Create a graph with your galaxy rotation curve for a variety of galaxy masses from low to high. What masses do you need to get rid of the peak? What masses minimize the waves so that a curve can look smooth as in M 33?
    P.S. M 33 has a mass of 5 × 10^10 M☉ roughly 1% of the Milky Way's 0.8–1.5×10^12 M☉. If your theory is correct then your graph must show that as mass decreases, the peak and waves decrease.

  2. #962
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,908
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    It's more within the error range of the observations than with that dark matter halo that makes no sense physically and theoretically.
    More imagination? If you had any evidence for "more within the error range of the observations" then you would have presented it. You would have plotted your curves against the actual data with error bars which would be in this thread.

    An incorrect "dark matter halo that makes no sense physically and theoretically" statement suggests that you have not learned the mainstreams science you are arguing against. The reason that astronomers support dark matter halos is that they make sense physically and theoretically.

  3. #963
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Obviously you are ignoring the galaxy rotation curve of the M 33 galaxy yet again which does not fit your pattern. It has no peak at all. It has no waves.
    I trust more the following rotation curve than what's on Wiki:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	rotation-curve-10kpc.PNG 
Views:	16 
Size:	79.9 KB 
ID:	23657

    Other galaxies have measured masses. Their masses are possibly better measured than the Milky Way's mass. We are inside the Milky Way. Dust and gas hides parts from us.

    A suggestion: Create a graph with your galaxy rotation curve for a variety of galaxy masses from low to high. What masses do you need to get rid of the peak? What masses minimize the waves so that a curve can look smooth as in M 33?
    P.S. M 33 has a mass of 5 × 10^10 M☉ roughly 1% of the Milky Way's 0.8–1.5×10^12 M☉. If your theory is correct then your graph must show that as mass decreases, the peak and waves decrease.
    The mass of the galaxy and the angular speed both play an important role. The former defines the amplitude and the latter defines the slope at high radii.

  4. #964
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    More imagination? If you had any evidence for "more within the error range of the observations" then you would have presented it. You would have plotted your curves against the actual data with error bars which would be in this thread.

    An incorrect "dark matter halo that makes no sense physically and theoretically" statement suggests that you have not learned the mainstreams science you are arguing against. The reason that astronomers support dark matter halos is that they make sense physically and theoretically.
    I do not want to deviate from the main subject but nobody answered one of my previous question in the Q&A forum:

    Is it possible to have an infinite dark matter mass at one exact location? Because apparently dark matter does not interact with itself.

    See? This is nonsense.

  5. #965
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,682
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Phillippe, I find it difficult to take this paper seriously.
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isn’t a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  6. #966
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,403
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Phillippe, I find it difficult to take this paper seriously.
    Why? It gives an exact result with simple calculus.

  7. #967
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,722
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Why? It gives an exact result with simple calculus.
    You are doing yourself a great disservice by mining the internet for bad papers that happen to say things that you want to be true. That's an absolutely terrible way to do science, philippeb8. How can one hope to overturn mainstream physics if you don't learn what mainstream physics actually says? Just because it gives the result that you want with simple maths is a poor criterion. I could get that same number without any calculus at all. Would you then rate my derivation as superior to this one? I would hope that you would take the time to look at the physics underlying the equations first!

    Do a search for how many other papers reference this one. Notice the background of the author (Plant science? Really??), notice the journal. If you really think that this paper is worth citing without doing more checking, you are demonstrating such poor scientific judgment that few will take your own work seriously.

    After merely skimming the first few paragraphs, I started to chuckle. I think that the paper may have been submitted on a wager by a prankster (see "Sokal Affair").

  8. #968
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    You are doing yourself a great disservice by mining the internet for bad papers that happen to say things that you want to be true. That's an absolutely terrible way to do science, philippeb8. How can one hope to overturn mainstream physics if you don't learn what mainstream physics actually says? Just because it gives the result that you want with simple maths is a poor criterion. I could get that same number without any calculus at all. Would you then rate my derivation as superior to this one? I would hope that you would take the time to look at the physics underlying the equations first!

    Do a search for how many other papers reference this one. Notice the background of the author (Plant science? Really??), notice the journal. If you really think that this paper is worth citing without doing more checking, you are demonstrating such poor scientific judgment that few will take your own work seriously.

    After merely skimming the first few paragraphs, I started to chuckle. I think that the paper may have been submitted on a wager by a prankster (see "Sokal Affair").
    - Calculus is simple to understand as I wrote my own inside-the-sphere gravitational potential formula

    - Computer scientists put their emphasis on the content, not the container

    - Computer scientists don't like to reinvent the wheel

    So the job is done and I get the right results. Now we're talking "politics".

  9. #969
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,722
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    - Calculus is simple to understand as I wrote my own inside-the-sphere gravitational potential formula

    - Computer scientists put their emphasis on the content, not the container

    - Computer scientists don't like to reinvent the wheel

    So the job is done and I get the right results. Now we're talking "politics".
    No, we're talking confirmation bias.

    Physicists put their emphasis on both the result and the path. I don't see how you've vetted the content of the paper at all. As I charged in my previous post, you seem to have searched the internet for a paper that says what you want it to say, and stopped there -- that's classic confirmation bias at play, philippeb8. Physicists have a more skeptical attitude because the cost of relying on the errors of others is quite high.

    Good physics doesn't come from plant biologists publishing in an obscure journal, sorry to say. The review process for such journals is rarely better than that for vanity-press pieces, which is to say that there really isn't review. That fact that you wish to rely on such dodgy sources means that you aren't very careful about the physics. That's not politics.

  10. #970
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    No, we're talking confirmation bias.

    Physicists put their emphasis on both the result and the path. I don't see how you've vetted the content of the paper at all. As I charged in my previous post, you seem to have searched the internet for a paper that says what you want it to say, and stopped there -- that's classic confirmation bias at play, philippeb8. Physicists have a more skeptical attitude because the cost of relying on the errors of others is quite high.

    Good physics doesn't come from plant biologists publishing in an obscure journal, sorry to say. The review process for such journals is rarely better than that for vanity-press pieces, which is to say that there really isn't review. That fact that you wish to rely on such dodgy sources means that you aren't very careful about the physics. That's not politics.
    What wrong with somebody impartially reviewing his paper then? It'll take a day or two and then we can all move forward. The problem is right now we get the wrong dark matter / dark energy predictions with GR which starts to be costly.

    You have to be objective as well. I get all the right results everywhere else so please place your bet.

  11. #971
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,722
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    What wrong with somebody impartially reviewing his paper then?
    The burden is on you alone, philippeb8. Don't ask us to do your work for you. Why not simply find a solid reference for your claims? The perihelion advance of Mercury has been so well studied in the context of GR that you should be able to find something far better than a plant biologist's poorly written paper published in an obscure journal (and yes, it is very poorly written).


    The problem is right now we get the wrong dark matter / dark energy predictions with GR which starts to be costly.
    Don't be silly. It is for you to show that we "get the wrong dark matter predictions." You are not allowed to assume that which is to be proven. GR seems to do just fine. You have yet to support your claims.

    You have to be objective as well. I get all the right results everywhere else so please place your bet.
    Actually, it is your objectivity that is being tested. So far I only see that you selectively exercise skepticism when it comes to the mainstream, coupled with declarations that you "get right results everywhere else". You have yet to convince us that you have achieved what you claim. I'm simply telling you that part of convincing us (or at least me) is to cite solid references, so please find one. Don't ask us to perform a peer review of your references for you (and it would take more than a day, and frankly, people here have far better things to do -- remember, this is your job, not ours).

  12. #972
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    The burden is on you alone, philippeb8. Don't ask us to do your work for you. Why not simply find a solid reference for your claims? The perihelion advance of Mercury has been so well studied in the context of GR that you should be able to find something far better than a plant biologist's poorly written paper published in an obscure journal (and yes, it is very poorly written).
    His solution is perfect because it gets the right result and we clearly see the fudge factor in action. Computer scientists, biologists, physicists, chemists are all equal when it comes to calculus.

    Don't be silly. It is for you to show that we "get the wrong dark matter predictions." You are not allowed to assume that which is to be proven. GR seems to do just fine. You have yet to support your claims.
    I keep posting my findings here and there but people have a tendency to silently dismiss them.

    Dark energy is officially inconsistent:
    https://phys.org/news/2018-08-univer...e-physics.html

    Dark matter was also officially inconsistent for a long period of time:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuspy_halo_problem

    Actually, it is your objectivity that is being tested. So far I only see that you selectively exercise skepticism when it comes to the mainstream, coupled with declarations that you "get right results everywhere else". You have yet to convince us that you have achieved what you claim. I'm simply telling you that part of convincing us (or at least me) is to cite solid references, so please find one. Don't ask us to perform a peer review of your references for you (and it would take more than a day, and frankly, people here have far better things to do -- remember, this is your job, not ours).
    The PhD I hired reviewed the maths and they are fine. The text is of non-importance.

  13. #973
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    Actually, it is your objectivity that is being tested. So far I only see that you selectively exercise skepticism when it comes to the mainstream, coupled with declarations that you "get right results everywhere else". You have yet to convince us that you have achieved what you claim. I'm simply telling you that part of convincing us (or at least me) is to cite solid references, so please find one. Don't ask us to perform a peer review of your references for you (and it would take more than a day, and frankly, people here have far better things to do -- remember, this is your job, not ours).
    Also you'll notice that the resulting equation for the effective speed of the perihelion shift is the same as the light bending, except that some offset is added.

  14. #974
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,000
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    - Calculus is simple to understand as I wrote my own inside-the-sphere gravitational potential formula

    - Computer scientists put their emphasis on the content, not the container

    - Computer scientists don't like to reinvent the wheel

    So the job is done and I get the right results. Now we're talking "politics".
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    No, we're talking confirmation bias.

    Physicists put their emphasis on both the result and the path. I don't see how you've vetted the content of the paper at all. As I charged in my previous post, you seem to have searched the internet for a paper that says what you want it to say, and stopped there -- that's classic confirmation bias at play, philippeb8. Physicists have a more skeptical attitude because the cost of relying on the errors of others is quite high.

    Good physics doesn't come from plant biologists publishing in an obscure journal, sorry to say. The review process for such journals is rarely better than that for vanity-press pieces, which is to say that there really isn't review. That fact that you wish to rely on such dodgy sources means that you aren't very careful about the physics. That's not politics.
    This is a fascinating discussion, but it will end now. It has nothing to do with the specific topic of this thread, which is the specific physics and cosmology under examination.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  15. #975
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    This is a fascinating discussion, but it will end now. It has nothing to do with the specific topic of this thread, which is the specific physics and cosmology under examination.
    Thank you Swift.

    I forgot to present the calculations of my experiment proposal that I will show tonight. It’s closely tied to the GRC and is what led me to figure out the GRC actually.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  16. #976
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,316
    philippeb8,

    Stop responding to moderation within the thread, unless specifically asked to do so. From rule 17:


    Do not respond to moderation in-thread, unless asked a question by a moderator. If you wish clarification, want to question the moderation, or need to explain your actions, report the post and/or PM a moderator. If you wish to publicly discuss any act of moderation, start a thread in the Feedback forum. You may report the first post of that thread to ensure it is brought to the attention of the moderators.
    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. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  17. #977
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,908
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I trust more the following rotation curve than what's on Wiki: ...
    Read my post: Obviously you are ignoring the galaxy rotation curve of the M 33 galaxy yet again which does not fit your pattern. It has no peak at all. It has no waves.
    The Milky Way is not M 33! You need to show that your galaxy rotation curve can have its have peak and curves suppressed like a real measured galaxy rotation curve. I even suggest how you can do this later.

    A bit of shooting yourself in the foot with a Milky Way curve that does not look like your curve. There is a peak and waves as we already know. What invalidates your theory is a not good match to your peak and waves. The real waves are on a flat slope. Your waves are on a rising slope.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Oct-17 at 08:41 PM.

  18. #978
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Read my post: Obviously you are ignoring the galaxy rotation curve of the M 33 galaxy yet again which does not fit your pattern. It has no peak at all. It has no waves.
    The Milky Way is not M 33! You need to show that your galaxy rotation curve can have its have peak and curves suppressed like a real measured galaxy rotation curve. I even suggest how you can do this later.

    A bit of shooting yourself in the foot with a Milky Way curve that does not look like your curve. There is a peak and waves as we already know. What invalidates your theory is a not good match to your peak and waves. The real waves are on a flat slope. Your waves are on a rising slope.
    That’s easy and even better to represent. I will show that later.

    Also note that the waves is an approximation of the stars between the arms of the galaxy because their velocity is not perfectly perpendicular so their “vertical” component is reduced.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  19. #979
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,908
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Why? It gives an exact result with simple calculus.
    All mathematics gives an "exact result with simple calculus". What is important in a theory of the universe is the match of those results with the measured data from the universe. So far you have not presented any such "exact result ", not even a graph of your exact results and the data. That leaves us looking at graphs and seeing by eye that they are different.

  20. #980
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,908
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I keep posting my findings here and there but people have a tendency to silently dismiss them.
    People know that these "my findings" are well known findings that have been around for years. An incorrect interpretation of them is what tends to be dismissed (and maybe not silently!).
    The universe's rate of expansion is in dispute – and we may need new physics to solve it
    This is not dark energy or a problem with the Big Bang. This is that the universe is expanding but two techniques of measuring the expansion rate (Hubble's constant) disagree. Observational astronomers tend to trust observations and suggest the cosmology is incomplete. Cosmologists tend to trust the cosmological models and suggest that there are corrections to be made in the observations. Some suggest new physics.

    Cuspy halo problem
    This problem and its solutions have been known about for a long time.

  21. #981
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,908
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Also you'll notice that the resulting equation for the effective speed of the perihelion shift is the same as the light bending, except that some offset is added.
    What we notice is a suspicious "Perihelion Precession" equation appearing from nowhere with a "effective speed" when actual perihelion precession is generally expressed as a rotation rate, i.e. a precession.
    Consider your first term: GmM/r
    G has the SI units m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
    GmM\r has the SI units m^2 kg s^-2. That is mass * speed squared. This is not any kind of speed. It is more like a kinetic energy.

  22. #982
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    What we notice is a suspicious "Perihelion Precession" equation appearing from nowhere with a "effective speed" when actual perihelion precession is generally expressed as a rotation rate, i.e. a precession.
    Consider your first term: GmM/r
    G has the SI units m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
    GmM\r has the SI units m^2 kg s^-2. That is mass * speed squared. This is not any kind of speed. It is more like a kinetic energy.
    It’s the effective gravitational potential. Sorry for the mistake.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  23. #983
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,908
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    It’s the effective gravitational potential. Sorry for the mistake.
    That leaves the "perihelion precession" + "elliptical orbit" sections being an underived "effective gravitational potential" that is never used and a replacement of a part of a GR equation with your fudge factor.

  24. #984
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Obviously you are ignoring the galaxy rotation curve of the M 33 galaxy yet again which does not fit your pattern. It has no peak at all. It has no waves.
    Other galaxies have measured masses. Their masses are possibly better measured than the Milky Way's mass. We are inside the Milky Way. Dust and gas hides parts from us.

    A suggestion: Create a graph with your galaxy rotation curve for a variety of galaxy masses from low to high. What masses do you need to get rid of the peak? What masses minimize the waves so that a curve can look smooth as in M 33?
    P.S. M 33 has a mass of 5 × 10^10 M☉ roughly 1% of the Milky Way's 0.8–1.5×10^12 M☉. If your theory is correct then your graph must show that as mass decreases, the peak and waves decrease.
    M33 Galactic Rotation Curve - Theoretical

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	galactic_rotation_curve-5.png 
Views:	16 
Size:	13.1 KB 
ID:	23659







    M33 Galactic Rotation Curve - Observed

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	M33_rotation_curve_HI.gif 
Views:	15 
Size:	37.8 KB 
ID:	23660


    It has to be noted that:

    - The observed peak is rounded because the bulge and the disk are not distinct

    - There is not much space between the arms and thus no sine wave is substracted

    - The mass of M33 is 10 times less than the mass of the Milky Way because the latter is already very low according to FT
    Last edited by philippeb8; 2018-Oct-18 at 01:36 AM.

  25. #985
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    That leaves the "perihelion precession" + "elliptical orbit" sections being an underived "effective gravitational potential" that is never used and a replacement of a part of a GR equation with your fudge factor.
    The derivation is here:

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

  26. #986
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,403
    Experiment Proposal on the International Space Station

    Given the definition of the local frame of reference by FT, by sending the experiment at a speed close to the speed of sound against the rotating Earth (we suppose the speed of the experiment to be ), it will be sufficient to detect a change in wavelength while energy is conserved:



    Thus, if the stationary observer () measures , experimenter having velocity measures:



    Here, we have defined the light speed to be .

    As the frequency will be the same in all frames of reference and because the wavelength won't be, the resulting speed of light also won't be constant, relative to the observer in motion. For the stationary observer on the surface of the Earth, which observes the speed of light to be and a wavelength , we have:



    At this point we can find the new speed of the light beam in motion, which will be measured by an observer also in motion having velocity of :



    The predicted difference of is large enough to be measured.

  27. #987
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,908
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    The derivation is here:
    Which is not here in this thread.

  28. #988
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Which is not here in this thread.
    Well I can't rewrite all the referenced work.

    At least I am not trying to take credit for something I didn't invent.

  29. #989
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,908
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    M33 Galactic Rotation Curve - Theoretical
    ...
    Once against 2 separate graphs that seem to falsify your theory, like the Milky Way pair. A sharp peak that does not appear in the Wikipedia image. A slope after the peak that looks steeper than the corresponding slope in the Wikipedia image. The slope before the peak looks dubious.

  30. #990
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Once against 2 separate graphs that seem to falsify your theory, like the Milky Way pair. A sharp peak that does not appear in the Wikipedia image. A slope after the peak that looks steeper than the corresponding slope in the Wikipedia image. The slope before the peak looks dubious.
    I specifically mentioned that the peak is there because in theory the bulge and the disk are distinct. In practice they are not.

    But the slope before the peak is unquestionable because it represents an inside-the-sphere orbital velocity.

    Soon we will find the truth and in retrospect, we will find it laughable the mainstream was defending for a 100 years dark matter and dark energy after all this time and money in trying to find it experimentally.

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
  •