Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 151 to 172 of 172

Thread: Questioning Gravity & Relativity: Vertical Michelson-Morley Experiment

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    Without calculations, that is yet another unsupported assertion.



    Again, without calculations, you may not legitimately make such claims.
    Point taken,
    I have edited the last part...

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    Has GR explained flat galaxy rotation curves without resorting to dark matter, about which we dont have a clue??
    The explanation of "dark matter" as matter works very well and fits a large number of observations. We may not know what this matter is made of but that is not the same as "not having a clue".

    The various non-matter explanations for "dark matter" also work but in a more ad-hoc way (requiring different tweaks for different cases).

    But this thread is not the place for that discussion ...

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Yes I know..
    It came up among the results of the flow model and I just answered some remarks and questions.
    Maybe I should not...

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    8,718

    I think it is about time that you put some meat in the stew.
    Please provide some math here to show that what you are proposing is actually working.
    Failing to do so will most likely end this thread.
    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

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    The "winding problem" should evidently be solved by the flat rotation curve itself..
    The only curve that will fix it is if the galaxy rotated like a rigid body. It is observed not to. Ergo the winding problem still exists in your ideas.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    The only curve that will fix it is if the galaxy rotated like a rigid body. It is observed not to. Ergo the winding problem still exists in your ideas.
    Yes, the idea accepts the observation (flat curve) as given and tries to answer why it does not decrease with 1/sqrt (r).
    On the other hand, expansion of space might provide an answer to the winding problem and can somewhat contribute to the flatness of the curve.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    Yes, the idea accepts the observation (flat curve) as given and tries to answer why it does not decrease with 1/sqrt (r).
    On the other hand, expansion of space might provide an answer to the winding problem and can somewhat contribute to the flatness of the curve.
    We don't observe a flat curve though. What we see if a flatter curve than expected once we get away from the central bulge. Hence my comment that the winding problem is an issue if you think that the spiral arms are rotating together.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    We don't observe a flat curve though. What we see if a flatter curve than expected once we get away from the central bulge. Hence my comment that the winding problem is an issue if you think that the spiral arms are rotating together.
    No I am not saying that, either.."flat curve" has bacome kind of a generic term I think...
    the curve is flatter than it should be, that is a concern..and there is excessive lensing, another concern..I have not particularly analysed the relative motion of arms but flow might explain these anamolies.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    No I am not saying that, either.."flat curve" has bacome kind of a generic term I think...
    the curve is flatter than it should be, that is a concern..and there is excessive lensing, another concern..I have not particularly analysed the relative motion of arms but flow might explain these anamolies.
    Dark Matter explains them fairly well, and a host of other things. Your ideas about galactic rotation seem far too unformed to justify the claims you made in post 144.

    A piece of advice, which you are free to ignore. Pick something and focus on it. Give a detailed, quantitative analysis of it. Making a long series of claims backed up by no actual theory or rigorous analysis is a mistake that a lot of ATM proponents make. Physicists are swayed by evidence and analysis, not hand waving stories about what you think your ideas might explain. Every new claim you make that you cannot support with evidence, for me, makes your ideas less interesting.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    Has GR explained flat galaxy rotation curves without resorting to dark matter, about which we dont have a clue??
    ...
    No answers to
    IF01: Derive the equation for gravitational redshift in "flow" (show your working), Tempeststrawberry.
    IF02: Show that your equation matches the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment, Tempeststrawberry.
    IF03: How is "inside of the cylinder is empty" a cylinder full of water? (obvious answer - you measured the reflections when the cylinder was outside of the pool and empty)

    From this post:
    IF04: Please cite the flow model formula for tangential frame dragging with its derivation.

    Please read this post is just unsupported assertions and has some ignorance again. The fact is that galaxy rotation curves are predicted using Newtonian gravitation, etc.

    This is mainstream science:
    1. Newtonian gravitation cannot explain flat galaxy rotation curves without adding dark matter.
      One proposal is to modify Newtonian dynamics - Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND). This works better than dark matter for galaxies but fails everywhere else in the universe.
    2. GR cannot explain flat galaxy rotation curves without adding dark matter because GR reduces to Newton for stars orbiting in a galaxy.
      A proposal is to modify GR. The attempts to do that have flaws, e.g. TeVeS predicts stars with lifetimes of less than a second!
    3. We have a great many clues abut dark matter: Dark matter
    4. Newtonian gravitation works for orbits far from a body such as stars orbiting Sagittarius A* - just ask NASA !
      The Milky Way's central black hole at Sagittarius A* has a measured mass of about 4 million solar masses. This was done by observing the orbits of the stars over the last 30 years or so. Then 400 years of tested science is applied !
    5. This is frame dragging. These are the effects of frame dragging.
      The rotational effects of frame dragging decrease by distance cubed. They fall of even more rapidly than gravity.
      The rotational effects of frame dragging have a magnitude decreased by the speed of light cubed. They are always tiny.
      The linear effects of frame dragging are so small that no one has been able to think of an experiment to detect them (yet!).
    6. Spiral galaxies "look like a whirlpool" because their arms are forming new stars and so are brighter than the almost as dense volume between the arms.
      N.B. The arms are not physically persistent structures. If they were like the arms in a starfish or spider then the rotation of the galaxy would wind them up until they merged into the bulge. This is the "winding problem".
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Mar-15 at 09:30 PM.

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    so to summarize,
    calculate the mass of the galaxy and the galactic center according to the rotation of outer stars..
    Tempeststrawberry, that summary ignores a bit of basic science - gravity adds up!
    The orbits of the outer stars is caused by the gravity of all of the stars outside of them + all of the stars inside them. We could assume that the stars are the outermost stars and so the effect of the stars outside of them is not measurable. That only gives the mass of the galaxy. However there is a really big problem that galaxies do not have distinct edges. Galaxies have vague, rather ragged "edges". As an example, the Milky Way has a diameter of 100180 kly (3155 kpc)[3] with a mass of 0.81.51012 M☉[10][11][12][13]. Those references are to real science.

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,536
    FYI, Tempeststrawberry: The Wikipedia page on galaxy rotation curves has the example of M33 in a nice graphic. Notice how the observed curve for M33 is not flat far from the center - it is flatter then the predicted curve. This is good example for the flow model to match with its calculations.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Mar-15 at 11:56 PM.

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,579
    Is there anything more you can currently practically do to satisfy the critics who say that you have not done enough to minimize disturbances to your apparatus?

    What more would you have to do for your experiment to be printed in a peer reviewed journal, whether relativist or anti-relativist? The geocentrists, whose standards are much lower, would likely accept your results just as they are, as they fit in just with their model.
    Last edited by wd40; 2017-Mar-16 at 01:13 AM.

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    FYI, Tempeststrawberry: The Wikipedia page on galaxy rotation curves has the example of M33 in a nice graphic. Notice how the observed curve for M33 is not flat far from the center - it is flatter then the predicted curve. This is good example for the flow model to match with its calculations.
    Post # 158 :
    "flat curve" has bacome kind of a generic term I think...
    the curve is flatter than it should be, that is a concern.."

    And other posts answering your other confusions.
    If you could just read...
    Last edited by Tempeststrawberry; 2017-Mar-16 at 06:21 AM.

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Dark Matter explains them fairly well, and a host of other things. Your ideas about galactic rotation seem far too unformed to justify the claims you made in post 144.

    A piece of advice, which you are free to ignore. Pick something and focus on it. Give a detailed, quantitative analysis of it. Making a long series of claims backed up by no actual theory or rigorous analysis is a mistake that a lot of ATM proponents make. Physicists are swayed by evidence and analysis, not hand waving stories about what you think your ideas might explain. Every new claim you make that you cannot support with evidence, for me, makes your ideas less interesting.
    No, I take all of them seriously.
    I just think "dark matter" hypothesis is an embarrassement for modern science. It will be much wiser to simply say "we don't know" rather than packaging and presenting "dark matter" as a serious theory..This is no different than proposing an undiscovered planet "Vulcan" to explain mercury's precession. Had Einstein believed in those funny ideas, you would't have your beloved Relativity now..
    Last edited by Tempeststrawberry; 2017-Mar-16 at 06:50 AM.

  16. #166
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by wd40 View Post
    Is there anything more you can currently practically do to satisfy the critics who say that you have not done enough to minimize disturbances to your apparatus?

    What more would you have to do for your experiment to be printed in a peer reviewed journal, whether relativist or anti-relativist? The geocentrists, whose standards are much lower, would likely accept your results just as they are, as they fit in just with their model.
    I had mentioned before, the purpose is to make someone repeat this experiment in a well equipped lab..
    I'm aware of possible sources of error but there' s nothing much that can be done in my position.
    Again, I think this thread has served its purpose in conveying different ideas and suggestions bothways..
    and I wont mind seeing that it is closed, having been satisfied with results.

  17. #167
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    I just think "dark matter" hypothesis is an embarrassement for modern science. It will be much wiser to simply say "we don't know" rather than packaging and presenting "dark matter" as a serious theory..This is no different than proposing an undiscovered planet "Vulcan" to explain mercury's precession. Had Einstein believed in those funny ideas, you would't have your beloved Relativity now..
    Dark matter theories make predictions that are testable. They are tested. So far the theory is the best fit to observations - and plenty of others have been tried alongside it. You may not like it but that is how science works. The Vulcan hypothesis was used to make predictions, these were tested and it failed. So it was discarded. So far you have made one quantitative prediction and it is wrong. So we can safely say that scientifically your ideas are far more similar to the Vulcan hypothesis than Dark Matter is. Also note - even if you managed somehow to prove that Dark Matter theories didn't work it would not make your ideas one bit more plausible. The only thing that can do that is you using them to make testable predictions, and to show that the predictions your ideas make fit observations better than the current mainstream.

    And as for 'beloved Relativity' (and ignoring your claims about knowing how history would have worked out if Einstein had had a different intellectual background) - I don't love or hate relativity. As a scientist should do I evaluate it on its performance. Relativity theory is one of the most successful theories in terms of precision, testable predictions. If something else comes along which makes predictions that fit more observations then it will be discarded, just like classical mechanics was.

    So, are you willing to make some predictions? Perhaps follow up on your statement that you will provide an analysis of the Pound Rebka experiment that shows your claims about escape velocity and flow are correct? Or are you going to take the easy and non-scientific option of just making more claims you cannot back up while complaining about how you feel about modern theories?

  18. #168
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Dark matter theories make predictions that are testable. They are tested. So far the theory is the best fit to observations - and plenty of others have been tried alongside it. You may not like it but that is how science works. The Vulcan hypothesis was used to make predictions, these were tested and it failed. So it was discarded. So far you have made one quantitative prediction and it is wrong. So we can safely say that scientifically your ideas are far more similar to the Vulcan hypothesis than Dark Matter is. Also note - even if you managed somehow to prove that Dark Matter theories didn't work it would not make your ideas one bit more plausible. The only thing that can do that is you using them to make testable predictions, and to show that the predictions your ideas make fit observations better than the current mainstream.

    And as for 'beloved Relativity' (and ignoring your claims about knowing how history would have worked out if Einstein had had a different intellectual background) - I don't love or hate relativity. As a scientist should do I evaluate it on its performance. Relativity theory is one of the most successful theories in terms of precision, testable predictions. If something else comes along which makes predictions that fit more observations then it will be discarded, just like classical mechanics was.

    So, are you willing to make some predictions? Perhaps follow up on your statement that you will provide an analysis of the Pound Rebka experiment that shows your claims about escape velocity and flow are correct? Or are you going to take the easy and non-scientific option of just making more claims you cannot back up while complaining about how you feel about modern theories?
    You always "question wihout prejudice" and my comments like "beloved" etc.. are not intended for you..
    Having said that, you cannot convince me to view "dark matter" as a sound, objective or tested theory, sorry..
    Forum members sometimes criticise my theory for not having enough math, which indeed is not the case if you check the paper supplied..
    Does your "beloved" dark matter theory have ANY MATH at all?
    It is just a "fudge factor" introduced by Mr. Zwicky 80 years ago, to save himself from the hassle. And unfortunately, is still being used by the establishment today.
    In your own terms, "dark matter" is just what you BELIEVE and would like to see. Simple as that.
    You cannot even design or conduct a proper experiment to test it..
    Last edited by Tempeststrawberry; 2017-Mar-16 at 08:08 AM.

  19. #169
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    8,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    And other posts answering your other confusions.
    If you could just read...

    Okay, that's enough, so such comments, infracted.

    If the confusion remains, it means that you are not explaining it well enough.
    People here do not have to refer to an external document to get the details.
    Yes you have expanded on that in a following post, but if you are asked to present calculations, then you do so.

    Also, a thread is ATM is not there to criticize/question mainstream ideas, as you do with dark matter. An ATM thread is to defend your ideas. Pointing out possible flaws in mainstream ideas does not make your ideas correct.
    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

  20. #170
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    Post # 158 :
    "flat curve" has bacome kind of a generic term I think...
    the curve is flatter than it should be, that is a concern.."

    And other posts answering your other confusions.
    If you could just read...
    "Flat curve" is a popular term. The reality is not so flat.
    The curve is flatter than it should be is not a concern because it is explained by dark matter or invalid attempts to change Newtonian dynamics or GR. There are scientific concerns with dark matter.

    There are no "confusions". There are statements of well known mainstream science. Nothing you have posted is evidence that the cited mainstream science is wrong. For example you have cited no literature on galaxy rotations curves being calculated with GR.

  21. #171
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempeststrawberry View Post
    I had mentioned before, the purpose is to make someone repeat this experiment in a well equipped lab..
    The problem is that will never happen because:
    • People with those well equipped labs will probably never hear about your experiment.
      That is a PDF posted on viXra which scientists do not look at because is just a PDF upload site and a repository for so many crank ideas that any valid ones are impossible to find.
    • The rare person who comes across the PDF will see the same experimental issues as we have, e.g. the arm is apparatus rigid or thermally isolated (the original experiment used a slab of stone!), the apparatus is hand made; doing it in water adds another source of possible errors. People tend to not try to repeat obviously flawed experiments.
    • The even rarer person who finds the PDF and ignores the experimental issues will read the proposed "flow model" and think that this is an experiment done by an ATM proponent, maybe with a hint of confirmation bias (an unconscious creation of an experiment to confirm what they already believe).

    As for CosmoQuest: This is a forum. There are working scientists here but they are working! They need a reason to spend money and time doing an experiment. A not comprehensively described, probably flawed, amateur experiment with an ATM idea will not impress a grants committee.

  22. #172
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    46,415
    Since Tempeststrawberry is taking a little break, I'm going to close this thread in his absence.

    Tempeststrawberry, if you wish to continue this thread upon your return, please REPORT this post and a moderator can reopen it.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

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