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

[Reality Check]

I would like to reiterate that h is a simplification and not a universal constant of any kind. It is different from cluster to cluster, position within the same cluster, etc. It is the:

h = sum_i=0^n(mass_i/distance_i)

Where:
• i is an isolated body within the universe
• n is the number of bodies within the universe (those omnipresent)

And once again you contradict yourself: You have just defined h as a universal constant. It is the same from cluster to cluster, position within the same cluster, etc.

FYI: i cannot be an "isolated body", otherwise you would ignore the number of bodies within the universe.
The simple fact is that you have to include all bodies that interact with your "isolated body". Since we are talking about gravity, this is every body in the universe.

I will add the Moon to the simulator tomorrow.

You need to add all of the bodies that have any effect into your "simulator": Earth, Sun, Moon, Jupiter, rest of the solar system planets, every other body in the Solar System, every star in the Milky Way, every galaxy in the universe.

The first result from your "simulator" (the code I have seen looks like just a calculator) would be a plot showing that the gravitational time dilation between a point on the Earth and a geosynchronous satellite varies with the position of the Moon.

[Reality Check]

I also don't understand why it's expressed as mass / distance, since gravity follows an inverse square function. Are you proposing a new force which operates with linear fall-off?

philippeb8 does not explicitly propose a new force. All he does it throw an rather arbitary functon + his fudge factor h into calculations.
But this does imply a modification of Newtonian gravity as caveman1917 pointed out below on 17-August-2012, which invalidates his already very invalid theory. Adding an effect that only exists in GR to a classical theory is stupid because that effect does not exist in classical theories! It is like adding the forces between charges to a theory about neutral particles.

Let's rewrite that





Assuming circular orbits we have

So you are implying a force that drops of like

This drops of faster than newton, meaning that the expected rotation curves are even more wrong than we'd expect from newtonian gravity. The behaviour of your proposed alternative is the wrong way. It's only because of fixing your constants each time that you're getting right answers.

What you are basically doing is, taking equation 1, and knowing that we need a flat rotation curve (ie v(x) is some constant), is approximating for the region under consideration. In essence you're making (taking the derivative of both sides) for some appropriate value of x. Not that this should surprise anybody, but at least now it's clear.

Note that both his arbitary function and h can be seen to be fudge factors for the simple reason that he attributes them to gravity. But there is no gravitational constant (G) in the function or definition of h. Thus they have nothing to do with gravity.

[philippeb8]

I would still like a response to my observation in post #456 that the sum of every m/r you have identified is woefully short of the h required for your theory. I am still waiting for a response to the three direct questions of post #463. Most importantly,

Where is the mass?

Sorry for the delay but please understand that this is extra-curriculum and 30 days is extremely demanding. If I don't have a chance to answer before the thread times out then I will be happy answering privately in an email.

The mass of the Milky Way might be 1.5e47 kg (post #344). The mass of a galaxy as determined by the galactic rotation curve might be imprecise because both the observer and the stars observed are moving. And for distant galaxies there's the expansion of the universe that plays a role in the observed redshifting / blueshifting of the stars. If I'm right then the mass of all galaxies will be greater and thus increasing the ambient h as well.

In post #456 I argue that GR expects the time dilation effect to be matched by the effects of length contraction. This would require h to be half the value required to match time dilation for the equations of precession to work out to the observed values.

You claim that h_c of the solar system should be constant, yet in your own paper the value used for precession is half that used for time dilation. This requires h_c of the solar system to vary by a factor of 2 depending on context (as you use this to determine the precessions of Earth and Mars, you can't claim this is just near the Sun).

Is h_c for the solar system 1.35e27 or 6.7e26?

(Sorry I meant to call it h_g, not h_c.)

1.35e27 was copied from GR which is in turn a constant or c^2/G but 6.7e26 was found legitimately. So I would say h_g is 6.7e26.

A gravitational time dilation probe at altitudes higher than 2.5e8 m (out of the spin factor of the Earth) would be able to confirm this.

While we're at it I would like to reiterate that the MM experiment in a space shuttle would disprove SR.

[Reality Check]

The mass of the Milky Way might be 1.5e47 kg (post #344).

You remain wrong: The measured mass of the Milky Way is 1.0–1.5×10¹² solar masses. This is 2.0 to 3.0 5e42 kg and includes any dark matter.

Estimates for the mass of the Milky Way vary, depending upon the method and data used. At the low end of the estimate range, the mass of the Milky Way is 5.8×1011 solar masses (M☉), somewhat smaller than the Andromeda Galaxy.[31][32][33] Measurements using the Very Long Baseline Array in 2009 found velocities as large as 254 km/s for stars at the outer edge of the Milky Way, higher than the previously accepted value of 220 km/s.[34] As the orbital velocity depends on the total mass inside the orbital radius, this suggests that the Milky Way is more massive, roughly equaling the mass of Andromeda Galaxy at 7×1011 M☉ within 50 kiloparsecs (160,000 ly) of its center.[35] A 2010 measurement of the radial velocity of halo stars finds the mass enclosed within 80 kiloparsecs is 7×1011 M☉.[36] Most of the mass of the Galaxy appears to be matter of unknown form which interacts with other matter through gravitational but not electromagnetic forces; this is dubbed dark matter. A dark matter halo is spread out relatively uniformly to a distance beyond one hundred kiloparsecs from the Galactic Center. Mathematical models of the Milky Way suggests that the total mass of the entire Galaxy lies in the range 1-1.5×1012 M☉.[6]

And for distant galaxies there's the expansion of the universe that plays a role in the observed redshifting / blueshifting of the stars. If I'm right then the mass of all galaxies will be greater and thus increasing the ambient h as well.

You are very wrong. Firstly the expansion of the universe causes redshift of galaxies. Secondly this redshift is not used to calculate masses of galaxies. It is the doppler effect from their rotation that can be used.

While we're at it I would like to reiterate that the MM experiment in a space shuttle would disprove SR.

While we are at it, I would like to reiterate that is an insanely ignorant idea for an MM experiment. Read up what the MM experiment is and you will see how bad an idea that is.

The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.[1] It attempted to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The negative results are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, in which the stationary aether concept has no role.[A 1] The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution".[A 2]

Michelson-Morley type experiments have been repeated many times with steadily increasing sensitivity. These include experiments from 1902 to 1905, and a series of experiments in the 1920s. In addition, recent resonator experiments have confirmed the absence of any aether wind at the 10−17 level.[2][3] Together with the Ives–Stilwell and Kennedy–Thorndike experiments, it forms one of the fundamental tests of special relativity theory.[A 3]

[philippeb8]

I apologize to everybody if I can't answer (for reasons of exhaustion) but I would like to ask the moderator to close the thread before I trip over the wire.

I will add to the simulator the near Earth measurement and the simulation of the galaxies so you are welcome to join.

Furthermore utesfan100 referred to the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment and I can say that if the distance is determined based on the constant speed of light then the determined distance is wrong because the speed of light is not constant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_L...riment#Details

Thank you all!

[Reality Check]

IFurthermore utesfan100 referred to the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment and I can say that if the distance is determined based on the constant speed of light then the determined distance is wrong because the speed of light is not constant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_L...riment#Details

Wrong: The speed of light is constant. This is a postulate of SR. SR has been tested extensively and found to be true.
But of course FT will probably repeat the ignorance of adding something that does not exist in classical mechanics to classical mechanics, i.e. we may have

1. Gravitational time dilation - Done and so FT is invalid!
2. Frame dragging - to come according to philippeb8 and FT will be4 even more invalid!
3. An arbitrary function for the speed of light (or maybe the coordinate dependent speed of light from GR).

If you are thinking about gravitational time dilation then this is essentally zero for the round trip (redshifted one way, blueshifted the other way, motion of the Moon during the trip is essentially zero).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_L...riment#Results

* The universal force of gravity is very stable. The experiments have put an upper limit on the change in Newton's gravitational constant G of less than 1 part in 10^11 since 1969.[3]
* The likelihood of any "Nordtvedt effect" (a composition-dependent differential acceleration of the Moon and Earth towards the Sun) has been ruled out to high precision,[9][10] strongly supporting the validity of the Strong Equivalence Principle.
* Einstein's theory of gravity (the general theory of relativity) predicts the Moon's orbit to within the accuracy of the laser ranging measurements.[3]

[Tensor]

3. What is the value predicted for your idea for the Viking Relativity Experiment.

I don't have the technical details of the Viking experiment

You should, it took me all of 30 seconds to find the paper on the internet. Which tells me you didn't look very hard for it.

but if I want to calculate the time it take for a photon to go from the surface of the Earth to the surface of Mars then with the following information:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...oldata.html#c1

I have:
y = integrate((m/|x-i| + n/|x-j| + o/|x-k| + h_g)/((m/|i| + n/|j| + o/|k| + h_g))*1/c, x)
y = (o*log(|x-k|) + n*log(|x-j|) + m*log(|x-i|) + h_g*x) / (c*(o/|k| + n/|j| + m/|i| + h_g))

Where:
• m = 1.989e30 kg (mass of the Sun)
• i = -(1496e8 + 12756000/2) m (position of the Sun)
• n = 5.976e24 kg (mass of the Earth)
• j = -(12756000/2) m (position of the Earth)
• o = 6.42e23 kg (mass of Mars)
• k = 2279e8 - 1496e8 m (position of Mars)
• h_g = 1.35e27 kg/m (or c^2/G as solved in post #165)

Then for a:
x = (2279e8 - 1496e8) - 6794000/2

I get:
t = 260.98873 s

I asked you to provide your calculations, along with the definitions of all your variables. What is a? What is x? I'll also note that none of your values of i, j and k are anywhere near the values in your link (not to mention they don't match the positions of Earth, Mars and the sun in the experiment). Note that the time for a signal to reach from Mars to the Earth will depend on distance between Mars and Earth. You don't provide the distance between the two planets. Also, how does c get into your equations? How were those equations derived?

What is predicted by GR is:
t = x/c
t = 260.98868 s

This is flat out wrong and demonstrates your ignorance of GR. The time taken is not a straight distance divided by c. The actual equation is:

Where r_o is the gravitational radius of the Sun, c is the speed of light, γ is gamma (metric parameter), r_e distance of the Earth to the sun, r_p is the distance to the target planet(in this case Mars), and R is the distance between r_e and r_p (in this case Earth-Mars distance). If you think the equation I provided is wrong, can you provide a link showing GR uses t =x/c?

So of course there's a noticeable difference. And it's a one-way trip here.

Well, there may be a difference, but as you can see the difference you come up with has no meaning, since you don't use the proper GR equations.

4. Provide the Galactic Rotation Curves for Andromeda, the Milky Way, and NGC 2742.

Observed rotation curve for Milky Way:
http://web.njit.edu/~gary/321/gal_rot_curve.gif

Observed rotation curve for Andromeda:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0603143v1.pdf

Observed rotation curve for NGC 2742:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=-ljd...nepage&f=false

y = √(Gm/x) * (m/r + h_c) / (m/x + h_c)

Where:
• r = 2.45986e20 (distance of Sun from nucleus or position of observer)

Milky Way in the Virgo cluster:
• h_c = 2.5e21 kg/m (retrofitted)
• m = 1.98892e41 kg (retrofitted)

Andromeda in the Virgo cluster:
• h_c = 2.5e21 kg/m (same as Milky Way)
• m = 2.48615e41 kg (retrofitted)

NGC 2742 in the cluster 2136:
• h_c = 5e20 kg/m (retrofitted)
• m = 2.48615e41 kg (retrofitted)

I'll note right here that you've failed to provide the plots for your idea. You also failed to provide the calculations showing how you got your values. Neither do you compare the linked rotation curves with your values. For instance, in your link to the Milky Way galaxy's rotation curve, the y values of the plot has the dimensions of KM/s and the x values have the dimensions of distance in KPC. None of your answers have either of those dimensions. Can you please plot your rotation curves, showing the calculations used to get the values? Can you show that the observed mass matches your m(remember you claim there is no dark matter, which means that only visible matter can contribute to your m) and where you verified the m used?

With the following information:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...oldata.html#c1

y = (m/|x-i| + n/|x-j| + h_g) / (m/|i| + n/|j| + h_g)

Provide the derivations of your equation.

Where:
• m = 5.9736e24 kg (mass of the Earth)
• n = 1.98892e30 kg (mass of the Sun)
• i = -6371000 m (position of center of the Earth)
• j = 1.49597870691e11 m (position of the Sun)
• h_g = 1.35e27 kg/m (or c^2/G as solved in post #165)

So when x = 2.5e8 m:
y = 9.99999999339e-1

Is y your time dilation? You didn't provide the definition for y. Again, you've also failed to provide the calculations for your equations. You claimed in a response to utesfan100 that is was a copy error) Show your calculations.

2.5e8 m is the inflection point taken by the differentiation of y:
y' = (-n/((x-j)*|x-j|)-m/((x-i)*|x-i|))/(n/|j|+m/|i|+h_g)

And we see that when we're going up in altitude towards the Sun and:
• x < 2.5e8 m the time is contracting
• x > 2.5e8 m the time starts dilating again

I didn't ask for the positions, I asked for the time dilation values. Please provide them.

I hope this answers.

It actually raised more questions than answers.

[utesfan100]

Sorry for the delay but please understand that this is extra-curriculum and 30 days is extremely demanding. If I don't have a chance to answer before the thread times out then I will be happy answering privately in an email.

The mass of the Milky Way might be 1.5e47 kg (post #344). The mass of a galaxy as determined by the galactic rotation curve might be imprecise because both the observer and the stars observed are moving. And for distant galaxies there's the expansion of the universe that plays a role in the observed redshifting / blueshifting of the stars. If I'm right then the mass of all galaxies will be greater and thus increasing the ambient h as well.

Here is your quote from #344:

If I increase the mass of the Milky Way to 1.5e47 kg I get an h of 6e26 kg/m. Why wouldn't it be possible the Milky Way is more massive than we think? After all we can't tell what's inside the kernel.

Observations, including dark matter, account for a mass of 2-3e42 kg. If it were 50,000 times more massive, as you assert, the rotation rates of the stars near the center (in the elliptic-like bar of the Milky Way) would be far faster than we observe.

You clarified in a previous post that the kernel you speak of is the object at Sagittarius A*, assumed by most to be a black hole. Based on the observed orbits of stars near this object we can limit is mass to 8.6+/0.8e36 kg.

So again, I ask where is the mass?

1.35e27 was copied from GR which is in turn a constant or c^2/G but 6.7e26 was found legitimately. So I would say h_g is 6.7e26.

A gravitational time dilation probe at altitudes higher than 2.5e8 m (out of the spin factor of the Earth) would be able to confirm this.

If we use h=6.7e26 for your equation of the time dilation of GPS satellites, don't we get half the observed time dilation?

While we're at it I would like to reiterate that the MM experiment in a space shuttle would disprove SR.

The fact that one can name an experiment that has not been done that can challenge a theory does not call that theory into question. To challenge SR you will need an experiment that has been done that does not agree with the predictions of SR.

What does MM have to do with time dilation or your h?

[tusenfem]

I apologize to everybody if I can't answer (for reasons of exhaustion) but I would like to ask the moderator to close the thread before I trip over the wire.

As requested in this post and by PM, this thread will be closed now.
philippb8, note that this was your last opportunity to present this on CosmoQuest.