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

[molesworth]

I know this thread is liable to be closed soon, but donning my "coder hat" again, I'd like to offer a comment or two on a previous post from philippeb8, on his program to calculate "h" :-

And I get:

5.23399e+19

Can I ask, is that the result of your first run of the program, or averaged over several. You're making extensive use of random numbers, so the results are not going to be the same every time.

Over several runs, I get values ranging from 5.23892e+19 to 5.24295e+19, with an average of 5.24133e+19. Giving your result to 6 significant digits is pointless when it's only accurate to 2. The same applies to most of the values you've shown throughout this thread, giving them to ridiculous accuracy which neither measurements nor calculations can achieve.

This is a common problem for people who implicitly trust what their computer tells them, and output their results to multiple decimal places, without considering accuracy, repeatability, or even having a feel for the scale and range of the expected results. That kind of thinking can, and has, led to mishaps and accidents in many fields.

I have a number of concerns about the posted code as well :-

double random(double lowest, double highest)
{
	return lowest + (highest - lowest + 1) * rand() / (RAND_MAX + 1.0);
}

The use of the standard library random number generator is not a good idea in any serious calculation. I'm not sure exactly what you're expecting from it, but it has a very limited range, and a pretty much linear distribution, which is very, very seldom found in nature. It's OK as a testing tool, but no substitue for a well designed and tested RNG.

I'm guessing you haven't considered the value of RAND_MAX very carefully either - on most implementations it's 0x7fff, or 32767, which means you're only ever going to get 32767 different values from your function - and again, this is a common misconception of people not aware of what's going on "under the hood", thinking they'll get an almost limitless sequence of completely different numbers. Don't confuse sequence length with range of values. You're generating the same 32767 values, over and over again (roughly 2,400 times) in your loop. They'll come in a different order, and slightly different distribution each time you run it, but it's not really random at all...

	for (long long i = 0; i < 80000000; ++ i)
	{
		double mass = 1.98892e30;
		double distance = 9.4605284e15 * random(4.0, 2000.0);
		
		h += mass / distance;
	}

What exactly are you trying to calculate here? I've gone back through the thread trying to identify the constants used, and the one that puzzles me the most is the 80000000 used for the loop limit (and why are you using a long long? it fits in an int...). I'm guessing you want to generate h as the sum of many masses at random-ish distances, but why 80 million? (I'm also puzzled by the random numbers being in the range 4 to 2001, but that's not such a big concern.)

Since you're summing values, the loop count has a direct bearing on the result, e.g using 70 million "objects", h = 4.6e+019, while with 90 million it's 5.9e+019.

As far as I can see, what you've written isn't a simulator, it's just a strange calculation app, which converts arbitrary values into other arbitrary values, neither input nor output having much relationship to the real world.

I think you need to go back to basics and try to work out a mathematical model of your theory first, then, once you have something testable, start developing a possible simulation. Doing it backwards is never going to provide something workable.

[utesfan100]

What exactly are you trying to calculate here? I've gone back through the thread trying to identify the constants used, and the one that puzzles me the most is the 80000000 used for the loop limit (and why are you using a long long? it fits in an int...). I'm guessing you want to generate h as the sum of many masses at random-ish distances, but why 80 million? (I'm also puzzled by the random numbers being in the range 4 to 2001, but that's not such a big concern.)

After I had shown that the m/r for the various objects in our universe were not sufficient to produce the h value he needs to make his theory work, he speculated that h may be due to the 80 Million stars within 2000 light years from earth. (post 359)

I then showed that this should be closer to 1.7e19 (post 409), and he wrote this program to rebut this claim, showing to himself that this claim was wrong.

The biggest problem with this code is that it does not account for the fact that there is more space at r=2000 than there is at r=4. This systematic error artificially inflates the number, but not nearly enough to support his claim that h should be 1e27.

[Reality Check]

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

FYI (if you return): Because there are candidates for dark matter that are currently detectable!

[Reality Check]

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

FYI (if you return): Arguing from a continued position of ignorance is not doing your case any good.
Constants do not "patch" a theory. Newtonian gravity has a constant G - that is not a "patch". Electromagnetism has a constant c - that is not a "patch".
The cosmological constant was always in GR.

A variable h whose definition and value you keep on changing is an illegal"patch" for any theory. But FT is not even a theory because it iis fatally flawed - gravitational time dilation does not exist in Newtonian mechanics and so cannot be added to Newtronian mechanics.

[molesworth]

After I had shown that the m/r for the various objects in our universe were not sufficient to produce the h value he needs to make his theory work, he speculated that h may be due to the 80 Million stars within 2000 light years from earth. (post 359)

I then showed that this should be closer to 1.7e19 (post 409), and he wrote this program to rebut this claim, showing to himself that this claim was wrong.

The biggest problem with this code is that it does not account for the fact that there is more space at r=2000 than there is at r=4. This systematic error artificially inflates the number, but not nearly enough to support his claim that h should be 1e27.

Thanks for that. There are so many "magic numbers" in this theory that tracking any of them down can be difficult

Indeed the use of lineary distributed random numbers introduces a major bias, as it implies there are the same number of stars at each distance, which is obviously incorrect...

[utesfan100]

h is not explained by mass
At various times the author has tried to claim that certain bodies contribute the majority of h needed to agree with observation. Starting with the Milky Way, the author moved to super clusters and then to the 80 Million stars within 2000 light years. Even when added together, we are far short of the h needed to make this theory work.

Object: h (post given)
Milky Way: 1.2e22 (#37, #69)
Perseus Super Cluster: 5.9e21 (#154)
Coma Super Cluster: 4.6e20 (#154)
Shapely Super Cluster: 1.8e22 (#154)
Virgo Super Cluster: 8e22 (#341)
Local Stars, 2000 LY radius: 1.7e19 (#409) 5.2E19 (#414)

Total: 1.1e23 kg/m
Required: 1.35e27

Further, this uses the accepted values that include dark matter, which FT rejects. This reduces h by a factor of 6.

Total: 2e22 kg/m

Thus, rather than having 5 parts needed per one part observed matter unexplained, FT requires 65,000 parts
needed per one part observed. Thus FT amplifies the need of dark matter to a degree not supported by the observed gravitational lensing of distant objects.

The accuracy of FT is due to first order agreement of PPN time dilation of GR
I showed in post #165 that, when examined in the first order PPN limit, this theory agrees with GR for the case h~c^2/g. This turns out to be the value that the OP determined empirically to fit his model, thus verifying GR.

I argued that the constant c^2/G (up to a small constant) is exactly what we would expect for a relativistic theory of gravity in post #419.

The fact that this theory may work for the few cases it has been examined in is then due to the fact that it approximates GR to the PPN limit relative to time dilation.

Factor of two for precession is due to neglected spatial curvature of GR
FT does not approximate GR relative to the length contraction of space-time curvature, which can be expected to show up in the precession of the planets. Here FT requires an h of half the value required for time dilation, doubling the impact. GR expects an additional contribution due to the length contraction to match the time dilation effects, explaining the factor of 2.

Thus the factor of two is exactly what is needed to agree with GR, and violates the FT hypothesis that h is nearly constant in our solar system.

Conclusion
FT does not produce valid results because h is a based on the mass distribution of the universe, but because it's equations approximate GR to the first order corrective terms relative to Newtonian gravity.

[tusenfem]

dapifo's discussion moved to its own thread.

[philippeb8]

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.

I apologize to everybody for the lag in my responses but I was completely burned out.


1) Sorry for not being clear, my mistake. h is the gravitational potential (without G) of the universe at a given scale. I should have used:
h_g = for the Milky Way
h_c = for the Virgo cluster
h_s = for the Virgo supercluster
h_u = for the visible universe


2) I added comments to my code (mainly in the core functions) and once again it can be found here:
https://code.google.com/p/finite-the...e/#svn%2Ftrunk

To compile under Unix:
$ svn co http://finite-theory.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/ finite-theory-read-only
$ cd finite-theory-read-only
$ qmake
$ make

Please make sure you have Qt 4 installed.

My intent is to add a near Earth predictions (including the Moon) tab and a galaxy tab that will take into account the spin factor (GR calls it: frame dragging). For those interested knows where to find my email address.

I will reply to Tensor tomorrow.

[Reality Check]

I1) Sorry for not being clear, my mistake. h is the gravitational potential (without G) of the universe at a given scale. I should have used:
h_g = for the Milky Way ...

So how do you decide what the "given scale" is?
Why is it not always h_g or h_u?

If you have to select a "scale" for evey situation then h is definitely a fudge factor as noted before.

[Reality Check]

...a galaxy tab that will take into account the spin factor (GR calls it: frame dragging).

That is a really bad idea since frame dragging ("spin factor") does not exist in classical mechanics.

On the other hand you are already ignoring the basic fact that gravitational time dilation does not exist in classical mechanics. Thus your fudge factor h.
If you do decide to waste your time doing adding yet another thing that does not exist in classical mechanics then you will be adding yet another fudge factor. I suggest that you call it
s_w = for the Earth
s_g = for the Milky Way
s_c = for the Virgo cluster
s_s = for the Virgo supercluster
s_u = for the visible universe
s_1 for the first black hole candidate in the Milky Way
s_2 for the second black hole candidate in the Milky Way
s_n for the nth black hole candidate in the Milky Way
s_m1 for the supermassive black hole in the Milky Way
s_m2 for the supermassive black hole in galaxy 1
...
s_m9999999999 for the for the supermassive black hole in galaxy 9999999999.
And then we can get to the 100 billion * 100 billion stars that will have your "spin factor"!

P.S. You may as well start with fudging the "spin factor" of the Earth. Gravity Probe B measured it to abput 19% accuracy but there are better experiments proposed.

[Reality Check]

Sorry for not being clear, my mistake. h is the gravitational potential (without G) of the universe at a given scale.

You have made another mistake - without G, h is not a gravitational potential! A gravitational potential will always have G in it in the standard unit system.
There is the geometrized unit system where G is set to 1 and c is set to 1 which is used to make equations simpler.

Your h is just a fudge factor with units of mass/length.

[dapifo]

Could you show an function of "h" that could explain its differents values?

h = f(X,Y,...) ?

[utesfan100]

1) Sorry for not being clear, my mistake. h is the gravitational potential (without G) of the universe at a given scale. I should have used:
h_g = for the Milky Way
h_c = for the Virgo cluster
h_s = for the Virgo supercluster
h_u = for the visible universe

You seem to now be explicitly stating my suspicion that you interpret my claim that h~c^2/G to mean that G=c^2/h, where G is no longer a universal constant, and h is based on the total sum of m/r for all matter.

I have shown in post #456 where you have yet to account for enough mass to generate the h required.

Where is the mass?

In post #410 I also presented links to experiments that show that G does not vary by anywhere near the expected variation in h. In #456 I even provided an explanation for why FT needs a factor of two between the h used for time dilation and the h used for precession.

Where is any experimental evidence that h is not constant?

Also, the velocities of the objects should appear as a change in his h locally that should appear in Lunar Laser Ranging experiments, and the variations of h with space should appear in pulsar timing data. These have been ruled out to the precision we would expect from his theory. (3.6.3)

The confrontation between GR and Experiment

Let us examine the variation in h due to the Sun near Earth. I get h_sun = 1.3e19. Thus the variation in h due to the sun should appear at 1 part in 10^8, more than the expected 1 part in 10^10 per year impact on G changing due to Hubble expansion would cause on LLR experiments.

Why do LLR experiments limit the variation in h due to the Sun near Earth to less than 10 parts in 10^13, four orders of magnitude less than expected?

[molesworth]

Could you show an function of "h" that could explain its differents values?

h = f(X,Y,...) ?

Ummm, isn't that your job? You're the one proposing the theory, so really you're the one who needs to do the maths, and come up with an explanation for inconsistencies in the value of h.

It currently seems to be some sort of "universal inconstant"...

[pzkpfw]

Ummm, isn't that your job? You're the one proposing the theory, so really you're the one who needs to do the maths, and come up with an explanation for inconsistencies in the value of h.

It currently seems to be some sort of "universal inconstant"...

Isn't it philippeb8's thread?

[dapifo]

Ummm, isn't that your job? You're the one proposing the theory, so really you're the one who needs to do the maths, and come up with an explanation for inconsistencies in the value of h.

It currently seems to be some sort of "universal inconstant"...

The OP is philippeb8

[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.

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 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

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

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

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)

5. What is the value predicted by your idea for the GPS gravitational time dilation? Again, provide the equations, the values used in the equations and the source for those values.

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)

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

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 hope this answers.

[philippeb8]

I will continue tomorrow.

[Shaula]

I hope this answers.

Yes, it shows you are using different fudge factors for almost every calculation. And you complain about a single perceived fudge factor in GR?!

[molesworth]

The OP is philippeb8

Isn't it philippeb8's thread?

D'oh!!

Sorry, I'm reading the "Defending an idea in ATM" thread as well, and got confuzzled for a moment.

Apologies to dapifo and philippeb8.

[tusenfem]

Yes, it shows you are using different fudge factors for almost every calculation. And you complain about a single perceived fudge factor in GR?!

Yep and the moon is still nowhere in the picture, I guess Mars is pulling much harder on the Earth than the Moon.
Such utter nonsense this all is.

[philippeb8]

Yes, it shows you are using different fudge factors for almost every calculation. And you complain about a single perceived fudge factor in GR?!

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)

I would like to point out that when I retrofit the mass of a galaxy to make the curve look right, I do not take into account the spin factor (frame dragging) of the galaxy. This might make a big difference, this is why I want to add it to my simulator.

I will add the Moon to the simulator tomorrow.

[primummobile]

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)

I would like to point out that when I retrofit the mass of a galaxy to make the curve look right, I do not take into account the spin factor (frame dragging) of the galaxy. This might make a big difference, this is why I want to add it to my simulator.

I will add the Moon to the simulator tomorrow.

h is a simplification of what?

[philippeb8]

h is a simplification of what?

It represents the omnipresent sum of the mass/distance of all the bodies in the universe. In the solar system it basically is uniform thus constant and represented by h_c in my examples.

[dapifo]

It represents the omnipresent sum of the mass/distance of all the bodies in the universe. In the solar system it basically is uniform thus constant and represented by h_c in my examples.

Distance to where or what?

[caveman1917]

It represents the omnipresent sum of the mass/distance of all the bodies in the universe. In the solar system it basically is uniform thus constant and represented by h_c in my examples.

Because the mass (volume) of a spherical shell of constant finite thickness grows faster than its radius, h should be infinite by your definition.

[Strange]

I do not take into account the spin factor (frame dragging) of the galaxy

Frame dragging is yet another consequence of GR that you want to use to prop up your theory. At this rate you are so dependent on the results of GR, I'm not sure what the point of your "theory" is.

[Shaula]

I would like to point out that when I retrofit the mass of a galaxy to make the curve look right...

Essentially your model has no real predictive power since you end up retrofitting to every result.

[utesfan100]

It represents the omnipresent sum of the mass/distance of all the bodies in the universe. In the solar system it basically is uniform thus constant and represented by h_c in my examples.

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?

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?

[molesworth]

It represents the omnipresent sum of the mass/distance of all the bodies in the universe. In the solar system it basically is uniform thus constant and represented by h_c in my examples.

But surely, if it's the sum of the mass/distance values for all matter in the universe, given an (effectively) infinite universe, with an (effectively) even distribution of matter on large scales, shouldn't it be the same everywhere? Why is it different at different locations?

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?