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

[primummobile]

You'll be happy when I'll be able to explain everything then you'll see that c^2/G is not acceptable. Ask any mathematician.

Why don't you just explain why? The question I posed to you about why square roots are not acceptable should be the easiest question for you to answer since you accept it as fact.

[philippeb8]

Why don't you just explain why? The question I posed to you about why square roots are not acceptable should be the easiest question for you to answer since you accept it as fact.

When I talk about "laws of nature" I talk about atomic operations reflected by nature like speed or momentum and time dilation is one of them. If nature requires a square root algorithm to know at what angle a photon should be deviated then I'm curious to know which one it is.

[philippeb8]

I am going to stick with 2-3e42 kg, 70% of which is dark matter.

And you forgot that GR also needs the universe to be filled up by dark energy.

It is up to you to show that this is off by a factor of 50,000.

Also, the Kernel is surrounded by a much larger spherical region where the velocity drops off according to the classical 1/r^2 force, not additional effects are needed near the middle of the Galaxy.

Which is interesting because this is where your h should be varying the most and we should see the most impact from your dynamics.

You have 2 effects here. The time dilation / contraction and the frame dragging effect. All I can do is write a simulator to get a better estimate. There's the velocity of the Milky Way within the Virgo cluster as well and this is using some "inside the sphere" gravitational potential calculation which is not trivial if you calculate this on the back of the envelope.

[philippeb8]

I really thank everybody here for their open mind but I need some time off.

Remember that GR tries to explain the universe from bottom / up; i.e. from a simple MM experiment. But I say let's bring the MM experiment on a space shuttle and we'll have different results.

FT explains the universe from top / down and this without the need for eccentric forces, energies or dimensions.

I think we should move the funds for research on dark matter into research on gravitons because at least graviton manipulation can give us something in return like faster-than-light traveling, domestic time machines and levitating vehicles. They might be hard to detect because they are the smallest particles but I'm sure they can be concentrated and absorbed.

[utesfan100]

And you forgot that GR also needs the universe to be filled up by dark energy.

I see nothing in FT that can cause an accelerating expansion of the universe.

[Tensor]

FT explains the universe from top / down and this without the need for eccentric forces, energies or dimensions.

I notice you didn't bother to answer my questions. Which means your idea explains nothing, as of right now.

They might be hard to detect because they are the smallest particles but I'm sure they can be concentrated and absorbed.

Typical claim for this thread. No actual evidence or actual calculations. Just assertions.

[primummobile]

I see nothing in FT that can cause an accelerating expansion of the universe.

Not only that, but GR doesn't 'require the universe to be filled with dark energy' as Phil is claiming. GR requires a mechanism to explain the accelerating expansioin of the universe and dark energy is the best candidate for that. But we don't even know if dark energy exists, let alone what it is. All it means is that the theory is incomplete. An incomplete theory is not a wrong theory. Electrical theory is incomplete but we've been using it for well over a century to do some pretty amazing things.

He hasn't seen anything that contradicts GR. All he has seen is things that GR doesn't completely explain, and he assumes from that observation that GR must be wrong. If that was how we dealt with all our ideas we would still be riding around on horses and throwing spears at one another.

[tusenfem]

I really thank everybody here for their open mind but I need some time off.

Take all the time you need, but don't expect to have a thread to post in after 1 september.

[philippeb8]

I beg to differ. You have not provided the information I have requested below:


I'll start by pointing out that didn't even come close to providing what I asked for. You provided a mish-mash of some values, some equations, some final values. To help you out, I'll spell it out specifically. What I want for each question is the following:
A. What equation are you using for that question, and the definition of each of the variables used in each equation.
B. What are the initial values for each variable along with the source of that value.
C. Provide each of the calculations, starting with the initial values.
D. Provide the final value for each of the equations.

Note that each question below indicates what is missing from the answers, using the definitions of the letters above. This is the second time I've requested the information.

1. What is the new value of h?

You are missing A, B, and C. Can you please provide the equation you are using to get the final value, the definition of each of the variables used in each equation, the initial values for each variable along with the source of that value, and the calculations, starting with the initial values?

h is found by solving it from the observed perihelion precession disparity observed for Mercury.

I do not have the knowledge on how it is calculated so all I can do is approximate it with my simulator. (*)

h would suggest in turn that the mass of the Milky Way is 1.5e47 kg (post #344). It might be more precise than relying on the galactic rotation curve to solve it.

Again, You are missing A, B, and C. Can you please provide the equation you are using to get the final value, the definition of each of the variables used in each equation, the initial values for each variable along with the source of that value, and the calculations, starting with the initial values?

Please see (*).

You are missing B,C, and D.

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

It's very necessary, in post #290, concerning the Viking Relativity experiment, you state "Thank you, you just confirmed that the Sun's contribution is relevant. FT was already predicting that as you saw."
Your equations ARE NOT using the sun, so your claim that FT was already predicting the value is invalid. You have not shown, in question 1, where that value of h comes from.

I don't have the technical details of the Viking experiment 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)/((m/|i| + n/|j| + o/|k| + h))*1/c, x)
y = (o*log(|x-k|) + n*log(|x-j|) + m*log(|x-i|) + h*x) / (c*(o/|k| + n/|j| + m/|i| + h))

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)

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

I get:
t = 260.988796 s

What is predicted by GR is:
t = x/c
t = 260.988677 s

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

You are missing part of A (definition of variables), B, C and D. Can you please provide the definition of each of the variables used in each equation, the initial values for each variable along with the source of that value, the calculations, starting with the initial values, and the final value for each of the equations?

I will resume tomorrow.

You are missing part of B(the source for the initial value), C and D. Can you please provide the source of initial values, the calculations, starting with the initial values, and the final value for each of the equations?

Finally, you have not provided A, B, and C for the Milky Way h value. Can you please provide the equation and the definition of each of the variables used in each equation, the initial values for each variable along with the source of that value, and the calculations, starting with the initial values?

[philippeb8]

I really thank everybody here for their open mind but I need some time off.

Remember that GR tries to explain the universe from bottom / up; i.e. from a simple MM experiment. But I say let's bring the MM experiment on a space shuttle and we'll have different results.

FT explains the universe from top / down and this without the need for eccentric forces, energies or dimensions.

I think we should move the funds for research on dark matter into research on gravitons because at least graviton manipulation can give us something in return like faster-than-light traveling, domestic time machines and levitating vehicles. They might be hard to detect because they are the smallest particles but I'm sure they can be concentrated and absorbed.

I forgot to mention that if no dark matter is found after all that is invested then "the trust" from the government will simply be lost and research will simply dry up.

[Strange]

h is found by solving it from the observed perihelion precession disparity observed for Mercury.

I do not have the knowledge on how it is calculated so all I can do is approximate it with my simulator. (*)
...
Please see (*).

I don't understand. How can you not know how to calculate it? This is your theory, isn't it?

[Shaula]

h is found by solving it from the observed perihelion precession disparity observed for Mercury.

Wait, so you use this to define the constants in your simulator then say that it 'predicts' this value and that this is proof your approach? That is circular.

[Reality Check]

There is no galactic rotation curve for GR that can explain all galaxies including low surface brightness ones. So FT is much closer to reality.

FT cannot calculate the rotation curve for any galaxy. So Newtonioan mechanics is much closer to reality. You need to get rid of your ingnorant assertion that galactic rotation curves are GR.

[Reality Check]

What you see as an overturning of a century of established scientific theory I see it as a wake up call before it's too late.

FT is fundamental wrong because it contains the really ignorant inclusion of gravitational time diation that requires a curved spacteime to Newtonian mechanics which requires a flat spacetime.
FT then adds a fudge factor h that you cannot even define.
FT cannot ovewrturn anything.
Also Newtonian mechanics has been around from 300 years, not a century.

[Reality Check]

You'll be happy when I'll be able to explain everything then you'll see that c^2/G is not acceptable. Ask any mathematician.

Any mathematician would say: "c is acceptable, G is acceptable. Thus c^2/G is acceptable". They may follow this up withy a Duh !

Of course if "c^2/G is not acceptable" then FT is wrong once again because it contains c and G.

[Reality Check]

The time dilation / contraction and the frame dragging effect.

Oh dear. You make FT doubly wrong now. FT ignorantly includes time dilation which cannot exist in flat spacetime and now you magically add frame dragging which also cannot exist in flat spacetime!

[Reality Check]

Remember that GR tries to explain the universe from bottom / up; i.e. from a simple MM experiment. But I say let's bring the MM experiment on a space shuttle and we'll have different results.

You need to learn more about physics.
Special Relativity actually explains the universe starting from theory (Maxwell's equations should be the same for all inertial observers, thus Lorentz's work and Einstein's better derivation from a coupleof postulates). It has been extensively tested and works.
General Relativity actually explains the universe starting from a single postulate .It has been extensively tested and works.

You remain ignorant of what the MM experiment is since you have the delusion that it needs to be performed in an airplane and now in a space shuttle. What is next - the Moon, Mars, an interplanetary probe, an interstellar probe?

[Reality Check]

I forgot to mention that if no dark matter is found after all that is invested then "the trust" from the government will simply be lost and research will simply dry up.

That is really trivial. If dark matter is made of particles that we cannot detect with our current technology then it is obviously useless to try to detect them with our current technology .
We will just have to rely on the overwhelming evidence that dark matter exists (you know the things you ignore).

[philippeb8]

That is really trivial. If dark matter is made of particles that we cannot detect with our current technology then it is obviously useless to try to detect them with our current technology .
We will just have to rely on the overwhelming evidence that dark matter exists (you know the things you ignore).

Then why do we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on its research?

[philippeb8]

You remain ignorant of what the MM experiment is since you have the delusion that it needs to be performed in an airplane and now in a space shuttle. What is next - the Moon, Mars, an interplanetary probe, an interstellar probe?

No just a space shuttle because I was told it was impossible on a plane.

[philippeb8]

Oh dear. You make FT doubly wrong now. FT ignorantly includes time dilation which cannot exist in flat spacetime and now you magically add frame dragging which also cannot exist in flat spacetime!

The curved spacetime is a GR thing.

[philippeb8]

Any mathematician would say: "c is acceptable, G is acceptable. Thus c^2/G is acceptable". They may follow this up withy a Duh !

Of course if "c^2/G is not acceptable" then FT is wrong once again because it contains c and G.

Having constants like c^2/G and the cosmological constant to "patch" a theory are not legal.

[philippeb8]

FT cannot calculate the rotation curve for any galaxy. So Newtonioan mechanics is much closer to reality. You need to get rid of your ingnorant assertion that galactic rotation curves are GR.

That's what I am saying since the beginning: GR has no equation to represent the galactic rotation curve for all galaxies.

[philippeb8]

Wait, so you use this to define the constants in your simulator then say that it 'predicts' this value and that this is proof your approach? That is circular.

It's reverse engineering:

- you solve h for the solar system based on the perihelion precession disparity;
- you solve the mass of the Milky Way based on the h that we just found.

I'm pretty sure this is more precise than solving the mass of the Milky Way based on the galactic rotation curve.

[philippeb8]

I don't understand. How can you not know how to calculate it? This is your theory, isn't it?

This is a complex mathematical problem. There is no need to do that for now.

[Shaula]

It's reverse engineering:

- you solve h for the solar system based on the perihelion precession disparity;
- you solve the mass of the Milky Way based on the h that we just found.

I'm pretty sure this is more precise than solving the mass of the Milky Way based on the galactic rotation curve.

Your first post:

I am able to explain all phenomenons in the universe:

- Perihelion precession disparity
- Gravitational light bending

I have to specify that the only thing I am considering in the perihelion precession example is the gravitational pull of the other planets. There are other effects that needs to be accounted for but in the simplified model I already am able to get a constant perihelion precession disparity of:
Mercury: 5*10^-7 radian / cycle
Venus: 1.8*10^-7 radian / cycle
Earth: 1.3*10^-7 radian / cycle

The observed disparity is:
Mercury: 5*10^-7 radian / cycle
Venus: 2.6*10^-7 radian / cycle
Earth: 1.9*10^-7 radian / cycle

You kept implying that h was calculated from the mass of the other planets (then the Milky Way, then the local universe...). Then suddenly you say it was reverse engineered from observations of Mercury, making the inclusion of Mercury in that list bad practise.

So one of your pieces of 'evidence' turns out to be curve fitting. I think you just invalidated your own model by your own argument

Having constants like c^2/G and the cosmological constant to "patch" a theory are not legal.

[Strange]

It's reverse engineering:

- you solve h for the solar system based on the perihelion precession disparity;
- you solve the mass of the Milky Way based on the h that we just found.

I'm pretty sure this is more precise than solving the mass of the Milky Way based on the galactic rotation curve.

It's not "reverse engineering" it's meaningless. As demonstrated by the fact that you get the wrong answer for the mass of the Milky Way.

[Strange]

The curved spacetime is a GR thing.

And yet your theory relies on it for effects like this.

[Strange]

This is a complex mathematical problem. There is no need to do that for now.

So you don't understand your own theory. Or, rather, you don't even have a theory.

You have a simulator ... no, it seems wrong to call it that as it appears not to simulate anything in the real world ... you have a program into which you put some numbers, some of which are apparently wrong, and you get out a result that is also apparently wrong. And you call this progress?

And, by the sound of it, you don't even understand it. Therefore you can't analyse what it is doing, so you can't analyse where it is going wrong.

This is worse than numerology. And you don't get to say that often.

[tusenfem]

This is a complex mathematical problem. There is no need to do that for now.

Yes there is, you came here and got the opportunity to present your stuff here.
You wrote a "paper" that apparently you send to Elsevier (I hope it was not the linked pdf, then it ended in the deleted items).
YOU said you were going to present your ideas fully here, and we have gotte NOTHING up to now, except some strange constant "h" that seems to rule the universe, that is first the scaling factor of the milky way and needs to be retrofitted, now it is calculated from the precession of the planets.
It's all blahblah, and no substance. You write a program but cannot explain which equations you put in your program.
You don't explain where this fudge factor "h" comes from and it can have various values.

Infraction for not playing by the rules, this has gone on long enough.