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

[philippeb8]

Hi,

I wrote a theory and based on the following 2 postulates:
- The kinetic energy of body relative to its maxima induces dilation of time
- A gravitational time dilation is the direct cause of the superposed gravitational potentials

I am able to explain all phenomenons in the universe:

- Perihelion precession disparity
- Gravitational light bending

And it goes beyond General Relativity by explaining:

- Constitution of a black hole (singularity disproof)
- Rotation curve for all galaxies (dark matter disproof)
- Hubble’s law (dark energy disproof)

Thus the following can be easily achieved:

- Faster-than-light motion
- Time travel in the future
- Gravity to be a particle thus can be manipulated

A link to my paper can be found here:
http://fornux.com/ft/ft.pdf

And a presentation can be found here:
http://youtu.be/hfY-JU9JAdE


1) To explain the documentation step by step let's first agree with how the event horizon of a black hole can be represented.

"The event horizon can easily be found with the amount of kinetic energy needed to overtake the gravitational potential energy:"

(1/2)mv^2 = GMm / r

"By solving the equation with the maximum escape velocity a photon can have, where the mass is of non-importance we get:"

r = 2GM / c^2

The resulting equation is exactly the same as the Schwarzschild radius.

[primummobile]

How many times are you going to start this?

[utesfan100]

A better question is are you willing to defend it in this thread. I understand that it is hard to express the entirety of an idea in an opening post, and thank you for posting a link to your work for those of us who may be interested.

I propose a test, a one time experiment for the moderation team to consider. If the author is wiling to answer questions without further links to his presentation, his past infractions should be over looked. Now, such a test would be meaningless without some direct questions to answer.

Let us start with the postulates.

- The kinetic energy of body relative to its maxima induces dilation of time
- A gravitational time dilation is the direct cause of the superposed gravitational potentials

Q1: What is the maxima of a body?
Q2: Are we talking about the kinetic energy as a function of reference frame?
Q3: If so, would the rest frame not be a minima?
Q4: Clearly the body itself has such a time dilation due to SR. Are you arguing that other objects near by have such a time dilation induced on them?

Q4: Are you saying that the gravitational potential is due only to time dilation?
Q5: If so, what need is there for a particle to carry it?

[slang]

Please note: philippeb8 has asked for, and, after extensive discussion, been given permission from the mods and admins to (re)start this thread.

[primummobile]

From your paper....

Given that nothing can cross the event horizon because the mass basically freeze in time, halts and
thus gradually cumulate layer by layer.

Why is this "given"? That's not what happens at all. Mass crosses an event horizon as readily as it crosses any other empty space.

[tusenfem]

1) To explain the documentation step by step let's first agree with how the event horizon of a black hole can be represented.

"The event horizon can easily be found with the amount of kinetic energy needed to overtake the gravitational potential energy:"

(1/2)mv^2 = GMm / r

"By solving the equation with the maximum escape velocity a photon can have, where the mass is of non-importance we get:"

r = 2GM / c^2

The resulting equation is exactly the same as the Schwarzschild radius.

This is a first year's college thingy. Yes you can use classical mechanics to obtain the Schwarzschild radius, the way you do it, because doing that you make two mistakes which interestingly cancel eachother, and you get the correct result.
Nothing new, been there, done that, no one is surprised, and it does not prove your so called theory.

[philippeb8]

Q1: When I say "maxima" I refer to the maximum kinetic energy a body can have or when it travels at the speed of light. So:
p_v = (1/2 * mv^2) / (1/2 * mc^2)

"Since the time dilation percentage is the exact opposite of the speed ratio then:"
p_t = 1 - p_v

"We consequently define general time dilation in direct relation to the proportion as follows:"
t_o = t_f / (1 - v^2 / c^2)

This basically gives us the graph that resembles to the time dilation of General Relativity.


Q2: No it is the kinetic energy for a static reference frame.
I just want to clarify that according to Finite Theory:
- There is no length contraction
- There is no mass increase

So the reference frame of the moving body is the same as the reference frame for an observer on the ground.

Q3: N/A

Q4A: The nearby objects traveling at the same speed will have the same time dilation as seen for an observer on the ground

Q4B: No I'm saying that the gravitational potential is directly proportional to the time dilation. But this already has been verified.
I want to say that gravity if the only force that can be added with another one thus the gravitational time dilation is given by:

t_o = sum(m_i / abs(r_i - r)) / sum(m_i / abs(r_i - r_o)) * t_f

Where:
• r is the location of the observed clock
• r_i is the location of the center of mass i
• r_o is the location of the observer (typically 0)
• m_i is the mass i
• t_o is the observed time of two events from the clock
• t_f is the coordinate time between two events relative to the clock

Q5: A particle does not carry time dilation but is subject to it

[philippeb8]

From your paper....



Why is this "given"? That's not what happens at all. Mass crosses an event horizon as readily as it crosses any other empty space.

It can't cross the event horizon because the mass's time stops and thus it will stop at the event horizon. The best example is the galactic rotation curve. You can see I explain the galactic rotation curve at page 15 (fig 7) in my paper, the observations are confirming this. The closer you get to the black hole at the center of the galaxy, the slower is the speed vector of the stars, whichever direction.

[philippeb8]

It can't cross the event horizon because the mass's time stops and thus it will stop at the event horizon.

As seen from an observer far away from the black hole.
The mass itself will see itself traveling into the future infinitely fast.

[philippeb8]

This is a first year's college thingy. Yes you can use classical mechanics to obtain the Schwarzschild radius, the way you do it, because doing that you make two mistakes which interestingly cancel eachother, and you get the correct result.
Nothing new, been there, done that, no one is surprised, and it does not prove your so called theory.

So it is confirmed and I understand it does not prove my theory, it's just step 1.

[primummobile]

As seen from an observer far away from the black hole.
The mass itself will see itself traveling into the future infinitely fast.

Ok, then what do you mean by this?

If we compare both radiuses we will see that matter will never be able to reach the compression of a
black hole. Therefore a black hole by its definition can never exist. Only a close-by counterpart made up
of very unstable subatomic particles can exist according to FT.

I'm not clear how you make the jump from a proton being unable to be dense enough to be a black hole to it being impossible for black holes to exist. Theoretically, an earth-mass black hole would only be ~1.7 times as dense (mean density inside the Schwarzschild radius) as an atomic nucleus. A neutron star's density is comparable to the density of an atomic nucleus. That's not much a jump, relatively speaking. So how exactly does your theory preclude the existence of black holes?

[philippeb8]

Ok, then what do you mean by this?

So let's suppose Mr. X jumps into a black hole and looks at the universe. He will see the evolution of the universe getting faster and faster, the closer he gets to the event horizon. This means by the time he touches the event horizon, the black hole will have evolved to the point of its death (if a black hole dies).

But for an observer infinitely far away he will see Mr. X slowing down, acting slowly to the point of looking frozen.

I'm not clear how you make the jump from a proton being unable to be dense enough to be a black hole to it being impossible for black holes to exist. Theoretically, an earth-mass black hole would only be ~1.7 times as dense (mean density inside the Schwarzschild radius) as an atomic nucleus. A neutron star's density is comparable to the density of an atomic nucleus. That's not much a jump, relatively speaking. So how exactly does your theory preclude the existence of black holes?

I presume the proton has one of the highest mass density. If you stack protons together without space between them (let's call it: proton ball), you can't have a more massive object in the end. I assume that proton ball has the maximum mass density and cannot be compressed even more. If you compare the volume of the proton ball with the volume of its associated black hole then you will conclude that a proton ball is too big to fit into a theoretical black hole.

[Strange]

So let's suppose Mr. X jumps into a black hole and looks at the universe. He will see the evolution of the universe getting faster and faster, the closer he gets to the event horizon. This means by the time he touches the event horizon, the black hole will have evolved to the point of its death (if a black hole dies).

This is not true.

But for an observer infinitely far away he will see Mr. X slowing down, acting slowly to the point of looking frozen.

And neither is this. The distant observer will see Mr X disappear very rapidly.

I presume the proton has one of the highest mass density. If you stack protons together without space between them (let's call it: proton ball), you can't have a more massive object in the end. I assume that proton ball has the maximum mass density and cannot be compressed even more. If you compare the volume of the proton ball with the volume of its associated black hole then you will conclude that a proton ball is too big to fit into a theoretical black hole.

The density of a large black hole is inversely proportional to the square of its mass. As black holes are many times heavier than a proton, and therefore many, many times less dense, how is the notional density of a proton relevant?

[philippeb8]

This is not true.



And neither is this. The distant observer will see Mr X disappear very rapidly.

This is where we disagree but this is an intuitive thought experiment, just like the length contraction of SR so it's hard to take one's side.

Let's agree that Mr. X will be subject to time dilation because of the increase of the gravitational potential, as seen to an observer infinitely far away. It's the same for an astronaut in orbit observing people on the surface of the Earth. The astronaut will see their watch going slower than his. Instead of the astronaut and the Earth we have Mr. X going into a black hole. His watch will be seen to go slower and slower. The same for his speed; it will be slower and slower. Time is a component of speed (v = d/t) so this is why it affects the speed of Mr. X. The graph for the galactic rotation curve is the same idea and it matches the observations without the use of dark matter.

The density of a large black hole is inversely proportional to the square of its mass. As black holes are many times heavier than a proton, and therefore many, many times less dense, how is the notional density of a proton relevant?

I'm just using the proton so that we have the smallest black hole compared to the smallest mass. You can't compress a proton, right?

[Van Rijn]

I'm just using the proton so that we have the smallest black hole compared to the smallest mass. You can't compress a proton, right?

Wrong. And a proton mass black hole would be much smaller than a proton.

[philippeb8]

Wrong. And a proton mass black hole would be much smaller than a proton.

A proton might have been the wrong example but it's the same principle for a quark, if I am assuming a quark cannot be compressed. A quark will always be bigger in volume than the associated volume of its black hole.

[philippeb8]

Another thing, I cannot show my simulator but I can tell you that I can explain the perihelion precession disparity for all planets just with time dilation. My simulator uses the following equations:

// For each planet j:

for (size_t i = 0; i < planet.size(); i ++) // Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, etc.
a += Gm[i] / r[i]^2

t = 1 / ((m / d + h) / h)
p += v * t + a * t^2 / 2
v += a * t

Where:
m[i] = mass of planet i
r[i] = distance of planet j from planet i
m = Sun's mass
d = distance of the planet from the Sun
h = 6.725316e26 kg/m (Milky Way scaling factor)

When we run the simulator we get:
Mercury: 5*10^-7 radian / cycle
Venus: 1.8*10^-7 radian / cycle
Earth: 1.3*10^-7 radian / cycle

The scaling factor h is a simplification of the gravitational potential at the scale of the solar system. It is close to the magnitude of:
mass of the galaxy within the solar radius / distance to the galactic center
10e47 kg / 2.5e20 m = 4.e27 kg/m

[Strange]

This is where we disagree but this is an intuitive thought experiment, just like the length contraction of SR so it's hard to take one's side.

And part of the problem with your ideas are that they are based on your "intuition" when you don't appear to have much understanding of the underlying theory.

I'm just using the proton so that we have the smallest black hole compared to the smallest mass. You can't compress a proton, right?

Even if it were true that you could not have a proton mass black hole that has nothing to do with the creation of a larger black hole. Black holes are not created by compressing each proton to form little black holes that merge into one. It is not too difficult for a large mass to achieve the density of a black hole. And it doesn't require protons to be compressed. So, again, your intuition is wrong and irrelevant.

[tusenfem]

philippeB it is about time that you actually PRESENT your stuff here in a understandable fashion. Do not just throw in morsels of your ideas. You wanted to present your stuff, and thus DO SO. Not this jumping around with "schwartzschild radius" then suddenly "how does a man fall into a black hole" and then whoop you go to "perihelion presession."

In your next post (unless you are writing that at this very moment (1015 MEST)) you will present an understandable version of what your "theory" is, otherwise this thread, just as the previous one, will have a short lifetime.

[Van Rijn]

A proton might have been the wrong example but it's the same principle for a quark, if I am assuming a quark cannot be compressed.

Why are you assuming it? I would have guessed you were basing that on it being a pointlike particle, but you then say:

A quark will always be bigger in volume than the associated volume of its black hole.

Why would that be? How are you measuring volume of a quark, or a black hole?

Oh, and when it comes to black holes on that scale, it gets complicated. It's not really known how small a mass a black hole can be, a big question being how gravity works at these scales. There might be some surprises there and there probably will eventually be some kind of quantum gravity theory that would supersede today's theoretical framework.

(ETA: I see now that tusenfem posted a request at about the same time I posted this - I didn't see that before I posted. I'd recommend answering his questions before these. )

[philippeb8]

philippeB it is about time that you actually PRESENT your stuff here in a understandable fashion. Do not just throw in morsels of your ideas. You wanted to present your stuff, and thus DO SO. Not this jumping around with "schwartzschild radius" then suddenly "how does a man fall into a black hole" and then whoop you go to "perihelion presession."

In your next post (unless you are writing that at this very moment (1015 MEST)) you will present an understandable version of what your "theory" is, otherwise this thread, just as the previous one, will have a short lifetime.

Sorry, I will answer one question at the time but I just wanted to point out that Mr. X, the perihelion precession, the gravitational light bending and the galactic rotation curve use the same mathematics. I just wanted to show the equations of the perihelion precession to better answer about Mr. X and the black hole.

But first I just want to clarify that according to Finite Theory:
- time dilation / contraction can explain everything without the need for length contraction and mass increase
- gravity is a particle
- space is represented using a 3D Cartesian coordinate system

And as it is already proven that:
- time dilation / contraction is directly proportional to the gravitational potential
- gravity is a superimposable force

So to go back to the example of the black hole, if we take represent the clock tick of Mr. X as seen by the distant observer using the aforementioned equation t, we have:
t = h / (m / x + h)

Where:
m = mass of the black hole
x = distance of Mr. X from the black hole
h = 6.725316e26 kg/m (Milky Way scaling factor)

The equation t is obtained by rationalizing the gravitational potential of the distant observer with the gravitational potential of Mr. X as we can see in page 4, equation 7 of the paper.

We will see that the closer he gets to the black hole, his time tick as observed by the distant observer will tend to zero. If the time tick tends to zero then he will stop moving:

s = v * t + a * t^2 / 2
s = v * 0 + a * 0^2 / 2
s = 0

[tusenfem]

WHAT IS FINITE THEORY EXPLAIN IT ON THE BOARD
It this above all there is?
where did you prove that time dilation is proportional to gravitational potential.
You were supposed to explain your theory HERE and NOW.
Infraction.

[utesfan100]

If we have to add a Milky Way scaling factor, why do we not have to add a Shapely Supercluster scaling factor?

http://www.eso.org/sci/publications/...o107-18-23.pdf

At a distance of 652 light years, and a conservative estimate of mass of 2.5x10^14 solar masses, this gives an h factor of 8.1x10^26, higher than the Milky Way. An aggressive estimate of mass from that same paper would be 20 times larger, increasing this h factor even more.

Do your models still produce the same agreement with GR when the contributions from this mass are considered?

Addendum: Your You-tube video appears to have broken.

[philippeb8]

WHAT IS FINITE THEORY EXPLAIN IT ON THE BOARD
It this above all there is?
where did you prove that time dilation is proportional to gravitational potential.
You were supposed to explain your theory HERE and NOW.
Infraction.

I apologize for my incomplete explanations. I already explained the first postulate but here goes the second postulate once again:
"- A gravitational time dilation is the direct cause of the superposed gravitational potentials"

And based on the facts that the gravitational time dilation is directly proportional to the gravitational potential and that gravity is a superposable force as stated here:

"Gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita..._time_dilation

And here:
"Now, it is well-known that gravity is a superposable force"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...n/node105.html

Then we can represent mathematically the gravitational potential the stable observer resides in with the gravitational potential the object that is observed is in. That ratio is a percentage and is a direct relation with the time of the observed object and the observer.

So we have:

t_o = sum(m_i / abs(r_i - r)) / sum(m_i / abs(r_i - r_o)) * t_f

Where:
• r is the location of the observed clock
• r_i is the location of the center of mass i
• r_o is the location of the observer (typically 0)
• m_i is the mass i
• t_o is the observed time of two events from the clock
• t_f is the coordinate time between two events relative to the clock

So for example if we want to calculate the gravitational time dilation of the satellites we need to take into account the gravitational potential of the Earth, the Sun and the Milky Way. Other gravitational potentials like the Virgo cluster and supercluster are negligible.

So we have:

t_o = (m / abs(x - i) + n / abs(x - j) + h) / (m / abs(i) + n / abs(j) + h) * t_f

Where:
• m = 5.9736*10^24 kg (mass of the Earth)
• n = 1.98892*10^30 kg (mass of the Sun)
• i = -6371000 m (position of center of the Earth)
• j = 1.49597870691*10^11 m (position of the Sun)
• h = 1.3450632*10^27 kg/m (scaling factor of the Milky Way)

Please note that h might be somewhere between 6.725316*10^26 kg/m and 1.3450632*10^27 kg/m. When I adjust the scaling factor for the satellites experiment I get the latter and when I adjust it for the perihelion precession disparity I get the former. The uncertainty of these experiments is great so all I can say is that it is within that magnitude.

So to answer utesfan100's question there is uncertainty from either part so I cannot be more precise. For example Finite Theory has no notion of a "light year"
because the light speed varies depending on the resulting gravitational potential of the environment. All I can say is if the scaling factor of the Shapely Supercluster is significant then we need to take it into account and simply adding it to the current one:

t_o = (m / abs(x - i) + n / abs(x - j) + h) / (m / abs(i) + n / abs(j) + h) * t_f

Where:
h = 6.725316*10^26 kg/m + 8.1*10^26 kg/m = 1.4825316*10^27 kg/m

[Reality Check]

IAnd based on the facts that the gravitational time dilation is directly proportional to the gravitational potential and that gravity is a superposable force as stated here:

"Gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita..._time_dilation

And here:
"Now, it is well-known that gravity is a superposable force"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...n/node105.html

The links are about different "gravities". The first is about GR gravitation. The second is about Newtonan gravity.

Gravity is superposable in Newtonian mechanics, e.g. to get the force at a point due to multiple objects you just add the individual forces together. It obeys the superposition principle.
But Newtonian mechanics is wrong
Gravity in GR is not superposable. It is a non-linear theory. You can think of the non-linear nature showing up as gravity causing energy causing more gravity. GR does not obey the superposition principle.

[John Mendenhall]

"Make everything as simple as possible, but do not simplify." - Albert Einstein.

Phillip, I do get the impression that there is a hidden agenda here. Are you trying to replace SR, GR, and QM with basic algebra? If so, it doesn't work. Those 10 simultaneous differential equations of GR describe all the macro Universe to the limits of our observation, theorizing, and testing.

In order to add to or change the mainstream, you need to account for everything. See the signature line below.

[philippeb8]

The links are about different "gravities". The first is about GR gravitation. The second is about Newtonan gravity.

Gravity is superposable in Newtonian mechanics, e.g. to get the force at a point due to multiple objects you just add the individual forces together. It obeys the superposition principle.
But Newtonian mechanics is wrong
Gravity in GR is not superposable. It is a non-linear theory. You can think of the non-linear nature showing up as gravity causing energy causing more gravity. GR does not obey the superposition principle.

I'm here to show that GR is wrong all that all phenomenons can be explained with the effects of time dilation / contraction on top of the Newtonian mechanics. I guarantee that the prediction of time dilation for geostationary satellites or any other probe will be more accurate using Finite Theory than General Relativity because the gravitational potential of the Sun needs to be taken into account at this altitude.

If you plot:

t_o = (m / abs(x - i) + n / abs(x - j) + h) / (m / abs(i) + n / abs(j) + h) * t_f

Where:
• m = 5.9736*10^24 kg (mass of the Earth)
• n = 1.98892*10^30 kg (mass of the Sun)
• i = -6371000 m (position of center of the Earth)
• j = 1.49597870691*10^11 m (position of the Sun)
• h = 1.3450632*10^27 kg/m (scaling factor of the Milky Way)

You'll see that the time dilation peaks at altitude 1*10^8 m and then slowly goes down if we go towards the Sun.

[Reality Check]

I'm here to show that GR is wrong all that all phenomenons can be explained with the effects of time dilation / contraction on top of the Newtonian mechanics.

Then you cannot show GR is wrong since you need GR to have "time dilation / contraction".
Assuming the time dilation exists (as in GR) and then finding that "time dilation for geostationary satellites or any other probe" exists is really trivial!

ETA:
But maybe you have derived time dilation from Finite Theory so:
Q1: Have you derived gravitational time dilaton from Finite Theory?
If not you have just invalidated the assertion above because you are assuming that GR is correct.

[Shaula]

So why do we see time dilation effects increase for SN Ia with distance despite the fact that the precursors and therefore the gravitational fields are so similar?

[Strange]

I'm here to show that GR is wrong

But you are starting by using a postulate that is a result of GR.