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

[philippeb8]

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

My postulate says that gravitational time dilation is the direct cause of the superposed gravitational potentials. Reality Check said that according to GR, gravity cannot be superposed.

[philippeb8]

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?

Please clarify.

[Shaula]

Please clarify.

I may be misreading your thread. It is hard to follow when you put in so little detail. Are you claiming that time dilation is only gravitationally induced or are you accepting Special relativity? If you accept that then why not General relativity?

[Strange]

My postulate says that gravitational time dilation is the direct cause of the superposed gravitational potentials. Reality Check said that according to GR, gravity cannot be superposed.

So one of your postulates is derived from relativity (which you claim is wrong).

And you accept the other postulate is wrong.

Your "theory" doesn't have a leg to stand on (quite literally). Time to abandon it and learn some science, perhaps.

[tusenfem]

Please clarify.

No, YOU clarify what you want to present in clear and understandable English, with derivations etc. Up to now you have not explained anything yet. Just one equation with the "ratio of kinetic energy suddenly turns into a time dilation? HOW?

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)

If you really think this is an explanation ...
I guess it may all be in your paper, but you were clearly told to put your stuff on the CQ board and not on external links.

[utesfan100]

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

If I had said 9.26E15 meters instead of 1 light year your objection on that ground would be dealt with. Even in your finite theory we can define a limiting speed of light in a weak field to use to define a light year.

Now, won't this change in h break the agreement with the observed precession of the planets in your model?

[utesfan100]

Please address my questions here, not in PMs. If we have wrinkles to iron out after the 30 day period has expired here, we can take them to PM at that time.

Well while we wait I can tell you that I dismiss the scaling factors of the cluster and the supercluster because they are negligible at the scale of the Milky Way. For example Virgo cluster scaling factor is around 2.5e22 kg/m, which is much lesser than 6.725316e26 kg/m.

Oh sorry, maybe we would need to consider the amplitude of the Shapley Supercluster. But the h of the Milky Way equaling 6.725316e26 kg/m was "reversed engineered" so this is the resulting scaling factor we need to end up with.

But the contribution from the Shapely Supercluster is already contributing 8.1E26 kg/m, more than your reversed engineered total. This is a conservative estimate, using the favorable bounds in the paper for the Hubble Flow and mass. Using unfavorable bounds would boost this to 1.3E28 kg/m, far above what your theory requires.

Addendum:
Based on the mass and distance given at Wikipedia, h for the Milky Way should only be 1.16E22 kg/m.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

[utesfan100]

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

Yes, but he also does not threat the speed of light as constant, so we are clearly not in SR or GR. This theory might be closer to an Eddington-like view of GR as a refractive medium in a flat space-time. It is hard to tell with the sketches provided.

This makes his theory closer to my Refractive Field Theory than GR. (Except, unlike the Finite Theory my theory also does not obey the superposition principle)
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...ory-of-Gravity

Work on this theory leads me to believe that his h factor is a function of the ratio of a clock within at that point in the field of the given object to a distant observer that is additive in the weak field limits under discussion.

Such a factor would need to cancel out, or else:
1) An observer at different potentials would observe different precession.
2) The Shapely Supercluster provides a non trivial impact that must be accounted for.

Since this is the only point of clarity given, it is the most obvious point to apply pressure to the theory.

[philippeb8]

As previously mentioned, using the aforementioned explanation of the second postulate using the same mathematics Finite Theory can explain all phenomenons such as:
- perihelion precession disparity
- gravitational light bending
- galactic rotation curve
- Hubble's law

The explanation of the first two uses the same simplified equations so here they are.

First if we want to know the dilated time of the planet (for the perihelion precession example) or the photon (for the gravitational light bending example), then for an observer infinitely far away waiting for t_o seconds in his watch will see the objects traveling for the equivalent of the following t_f seconds:
t_f = t_o * h / (m / x + h)

Where:
• m = mass of the Sun
• x = distance of the planet or the photon from the black hole
• h = 6.725316e26 kg/m (Milky Way scaling factor)

Reminder:
The gravitational potential of the observer is canceled because:
lim(x -> inf, m / x) = 0

Where:
• m is the mass of the Sun
• x is the position of the observer

As seen from the observer after t_o seconds, the displacement and the resulting speed of the planet and the photon is equivalent to:
s += v * t_f + a * t_f^2 / 2
v += a * t

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

In the gravitational light bending example the path of the photon deviates as well but I do not have an angle value in the same coordinate system that is used in the experimental verifications.

[philippeb8]

I may be misreading your thread. It is hard to follow when you put in so little detail. Are you claiming that time dilation is only gravitationally induced or are you accepting Special relativity? If you accept that then why not General relativity?

No I have 2 postulates. The time dilation is relative to the kinetic energy and the gravitational potential.

What I don't accept is the length contraction and mass increase or SR and GR. I say time dilation / contraction are enough to explain all phenomenons.

[philippeb8]

No, YOU clarify what you want to present in clear and understandable English, with derivations etc. Up to now you have not explained anything yet. Just one equation with the "ratio of kinetic energy suddenly turns into a time dilation? HOW?



If you really think this is an explanation ...
I guess it may all be in your paper, but you were clearly told to put your stuff on the CQ board and not on external links.

This is a postulate, an assumption, or a hypothesis. It is not explained in my any better in my paper but in clear English I am assuming gravity to be a particle and the graviton flux induces dilation of time of the object that is observed.

So you have a field of gravitons emitted from the Earth and traveling away. If you move an object in that field then you increase the number of gravitons the object is colliding with. This slows down the kinematics of the atoms (and movement) of the moving object. The same for having an object getting closer to a black hole; the graviton flux increases and thus the kinematics of its atoms (and movement) slows down.

The representation using the kinetic and gravitational potential energies seems to fit the observations.

[philippeb8]

Please address my questions here, not in PMs. If we have wrinkles to iron out after the 30 day period has expired here, we can take them to PM at that time.



But the contribution from the Shapely Supercluster is already contributing 8.1E26 kg/m, more than your reversed engineered total. This is a conservative estimate, using the favorable bounds in the paper for the Hubble Flow and mass. Using unfavorable bounds would boost this to 1.3E28 kg/m, far above what your theory requires.

Addendum:
Based on the mass and distance given at Wikipedia, h for the Milky Way should only be 1.16E22 kg/m.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

I would say that my most precise reversed engineered scaling factor for the solar system, based on the observations on the satellites, is:
1.35e27 kg/m

So 8.1*10^26 kg/m is just a component of it; i.e.:
8.1e26 kg/m + 4e27 kg/m = 4.81e27 kg/m

Where:
• 4e27 kg/m = 10e47 kg / 2.5e20 m (h of the Milky Way at the position of the Sun, thanks to Dr. Valeri Makarov for this)

So we see that the reversed engineered scaling factor of 1.35e27 kg/m is very close to the calculated 4.81e27 kg/m.

[philippeb8]

If I had said 9.26E15 meters instead of 1 light year your objection on that ground would be dealt with. Even in your finite theory we can define a limiting speed of light in a weak field to use to define a light year.

Now, won't this change in h break the agreement with the observed precession of the planets in your model?

I just tried my simulator for the perihelion precession disparity with h = 1.3e27 kg/m and I get the following results:
Mercury: 2.5e-7 radian / cycle
Venus: 8.8e-8 radian / cycle
Earth: 6.7e-8 radian / cycle

So I get approximately half of the angles previously stated when I double the value of h. There is uncertainty in either parts but the results should be significant enough because both the experimental and theoretical results are in the same magnitude.

[Marakai]

I just tried my simulator for the perihelion precession disparity with h = 1.3e27 kg/m and I get the following results:
Mercury: 2.5e-7 radian / cycle
Venus: 8.8e-8 radian / cycle
Earth: 6.7e-8 radian / cycle

So I get approximately half of the angles previously stated when I double the value of h. There is uncertainty in the simulator but I am already very close to what we are looking for.

Philippe,

Is your simulator source code available for review and evaluation? Is it well-documented and commented so that others can follow what you're doing?

I'm asking because only recently somebody tried to prove some ATM idea based on their program code, which was done with some of the most horrid and erroneous C code I had seen in a while. I'm *not* accusing yours of being that, but it's only too easy to turn a software bug into a new revolutionary physical theory. I more often than not can not comment on these threads based on the pure math and physics, but when code is being brought in to prove something, I at least can claim a certain amount of expertise.

Regards!

[philippeb8]

Philippe,

Is your simulator source code available for review and evaluation? Is it well-documented and commented so that others can follow what you're doing?

I'm asking because only recently somebody tried to prove some ATM idea based on their program code, which was done with some of the most horrid and erroneous C code I had seen in a while. I'm *not* accusing yours of being that, but it's only too easy to turn a software bug into a new revolutionary physical theory. I more often than not can not comment on these threads based on the pure math and physics, but when code is being brought in to prove something, I at least can claim a certain amount of expertise.

Regards!

I am more than happy to share the code under GPL. It is multiplatform C++ code and I have 12 years of experience in commercial development in Ottawa and San Diego so I guarantee of its well written structure.

The code can be browsed directly:
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.

[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.

Please be so kind as to answer my question. A simple 'yes' or 'no' is sufficient.

[philippeb8]

Please be so kind as to answer my question. A simple 'yes' or 'no' is sufficient.

Well I account for more phenomenons than GR because FT can explain:
- the galactic rotation curve (dark matter disproof)
- the Hubble's law (dark energy disproof)

As previously mentioned FT can explain:
- the black hole
- the gravitational light bending
- the perihelion precession disparity

Also I haven't had a chance to talk about it yet but FT can also explain:
- the momentum increase of the accelerated particle just with time dilation (no need for mass increase)

So I think I'm covering pretty much everything. I am not trying to replace QM, on the contrary I agree with QM by treating gravity as a particle.

The basic algebra you see is very simple but it gets more complex when you want to calculate the time it will take for a photon to travel between 2 points because the surrounding gravitational potentials play a role.

"So what's complex for GR is easy for FT and vice-versa."

[Mike Holland]

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.

Primummobile, there are two points of view here, both valid. From the local, black hole point of view, there is no gravitational time dilation, and, as you say, mass crosses the event horizon readily. But in a remote viewers reference frame, time dilation reaches infinity as one approaches an event horizon. This has been proved by all those who have done the maths for a collapsing supermassive body - Oppenheimer and Snyder, Landau and Lifschitz, Novikov, etc. As far as us remote viewers are concerned, black holes do not exist yet, and nothing has ever fallen through an event horizon. These things only happen in the local reference frame. But in fact we could not tell the difference (except that some BH candidates have magnetic fields), and with extreme time dilation and redshift we could not observe anything there anyway.

Another confusion often arises about "apparent" of time dilation there. If an observer hovered close to an almost-black-hole, he would be time dilated from our point of view and we would see his clock running slowly. If he is falling into the almost-b-h, then there is an additional redshift because successive photons take longer and longer to escape the gravitational field and reach us. So this optical redshift is added to the gravitation redshift.

[Strange]

- the Hubble's law (dark energy disproof)

What do you think dark energy has to do with Hubble's law?

[philippeb8]

What do you think dark energy has to do with Hubble's law?

The Hubble's law is the observation that the speed of the galaxies are traveling away from us proportionally to their distance, at a rate of:
v_o = H_0 * x

Where:
• H_0 = 2.26e-18 s^-1

Dark energy is the hypothetical force that repulses the galaxies away from each other.

So I can prove that the galaxies are traveling away from us at the observed rate by applying FT. So there is no need to the hypothetical dark energy to explain what we see. But first here is the proof:

"If we try to represent the speed of the observed galaxies using FT where h is null because the environment must not be encompassed by anything else then we will have:"

v_o = (m / abs(i)) / (m / abs(x - i)) * v_f

Where:
• m is the mass of the kernel of the universe
• i is the position of the kernel of the universe

"After simplifying, subtracting the speed of the observer from his observations and disposing the absolute values to keep track of the direction we will have:"

v_o = (i - x) / i * v_f - v_f

Where:
• v_f is the speed of the observer (speed of the Milky Way + the speed of the visible universe > 6e5 m/s)

In order to solve i (center of the universe) we can equal the 2 equations:

H_0 * x = (i - x) / i * v_f - v_f
i = - v_f / H_0

So I conclude that the visible universe must have a velocity because otherwise the center of the universe would be at -2.66e23 m away from us, putting it in a neighboring cluster.

So in other words, the visible universe is encompassed by a greater invisible universe and has an important velocity of its own. Furthermore what we see as galaxies traveling away from us is just an illusion because we are really all going in the same direction but the leading galaxies are going faster than us and we are going faster than the galaxies behind us. So it looks like the galaxies behind us are traveling away from us but they are not, we are. Once again, we are all going in the same direction but at different speeds.

My conclusion that the visible universe is encompassed by a greater invisible universe matches what other scientists already have concluded in 2011:
http://www.universetoday.com/83167/u...is-observable/

[Shaula]

Dark energy is the hypothetical force that repulses the galaxies away from each other.

No it isn't. Be a good idea to know the mainstream before you try to replace it, hmm? Dark energy is postulated to explain the acceleration of expansion.

[philippeb8]

No it isn't. Be a good idea to know the mainstream before you try to replace it, hmm? Dark energy is postulated to explain the acceleration of expansion.

I used the wrong wording for the statement but I should have said:
"Dark energy is the hypothetical force that repulses the galaxies away from each other at an accelerated rate. "

But it doesn't change the mathematical proof I have shown.

[Shaula]

Proof of what? It is pretty much impossible to tell what you are proving in that post.

v_o = (m / abs(i)) / (m / abs(x - i)) * v_f

Comes from nowhere

"After simplifying, subtracting the speed of the observer from his observations and disposing the absolute values to keep track of the direction we will have:"

Without knowing why you have abs() in the first place this looks like an invalid step

So I conclude that the visible universe must have a velocity because otherwise the center of the universe would be at -2.66e23 m away from us, putting it in a neighboring cluster.

So because your predictions were provably false you have to introduce a term to make them fit with observations ... and you then call that proof of what you have added? The whole logical chain here is bogus - it goes something like:
1) Finite theory is right
2) Finite theory predicts something totally wrong (that the centre of our visible universe is outside our visible universe)
3) Adding a fudge factor corrects this
4) This proves the fudge factor is justified

[Tensor]

I just tried my simulator for the perihelion precession disparity with h = 1.3e27 kg/m and I get the following results:
Mercury: 2.5e-7 radian / cycle
Venus: 8.8e-8 radian / cycle
Earth: 6.7e-8 radian / cycle

So I get approximately half of the angles previously stated when I double the value of h. There is uncertainty in either parts but the results should be significant enough because both the experimental and theoretical results are in the same magnitude.

Can you provide the total precession, and the contribution of each part to the precession, as predicted by your idea? Also, how does your idea match with the measured observations on the precessions of Mars, Icarus, and the various Binary Pulsars.

[John Mendenhall]

Well I account for more phenomenons than GR because FT can explain:
- the galactic rotation curve (dark matter disproof)
- the Hubble's law (dark energy disproof)

As previously mentioned FT can explain:
- the black hole
- the gravitational light bending
- the perihelion precession disparity

Also I haven't had a chance to talk about it yet but FT can also explain:
- the momentum increase of the accelerated particle just with time dilation (no need for mass increase)

So I think I'm covering pretty much everything. I am not trying to replace QM, on the contrary I agree with QM by treating gravity as a particle.

The basic algebra you see is very simple but it gets more complex when you want to calculate the time it will take for a photon to travel between 2 points because the surrounding gravitational potentials play a role.

"So what's complex for GR is easy for FT and vice-versa."

Ok, let's try again. You have NOT answered my question. Again, a simple YES or NO is sufficient. 14 lines of verbiage to avoid answering the question is not.

Again, are you trying to replace GR (or any parts of GR) with simple algebra? Please, answer 'yes' or 'no'. That's all you need to do.

[slang]

Ok, let's try again. You have NOT answered my question. Again, a simple YES or NO is sufficient. 14 lines of verbiage to avoid answering the question is not.

Again, are you trying to replace GR (or any parts of GR) with simple algebra? Please, answer 'yes' or 'no'. That's all you need to do.

I'll make this official. philippeb8, you will answer pertinent questions asked of you in a timely fashion, or risk being infracted. You have been given a very rare chance to present your ideas again, do not lose it by ignoring our rules.

[philippeb8]

Proof of what? It is pretty much impossible to tell what you are proving in that post.


Comes from nowhere

I apologize, I forgot mentioning that the speed and time are correlative and can be dilated and contracted in the same way. For example a photon travels faster in between galaxies than on the surface of the Earth. The same for galaxies; with the same thrust but in a different gravitational potential they will travel at different speed as seen by a distant observer.

The ratio affecting the observed speed and the real speed is given by the same gravitational potential ratio as I used in an aforementioned example:
t_o = (m / abs(x - i) + n / abs(x - j) + h) / (m / abs(i) + n / abs(j) + h) * t_f

Except that in order to apply the equation to the visible universe I removed the h because what encompasses the visible universe is neglected here for simplicity. So to represent the speed at a given position in the visible universe as seen by an observer at position 0 we have:

v_o = (m / abs(i)) / (m / abs(x - i)) * v_f

Where:
• m is the mass of the kernel of the universe
• i is the position of the kernel of the universe

Without knowing why you have abs() in the first place this looks like an invalid step

The distance from the associated mass is absolute just like in equation (867):
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...n/node105.html

So because your predictions were provably false you have to introduce a term to make them fit with observations ... and you then call that proof of what you have added? The whole logical chain here is bogus - it goes something like:
1) Finite theory is right

If FT is right then I can explain the Hubble's law.

2) Finite theory predicts something totally wrong (that the centre of our visible universe is outside our visible universe)

Sorry for the misunderstanding but I'm just saying if the visible universe doesn't move then its center is 2.66e23 m away from us. I just conclude that the visible universe must have a velocity of its own, within a greater invisible universe.

3) Adding a fudge factor corrects this
4) This proves the fudge factor is justified

h is neglected at the scale of the universe in this example. But at the scale of the Milky Way, the Virgo cluster and supercluster we must consider it.

[philippeb8]

Ok, let's try again. You have NOT answered my question. Again, a simple YES or NO is sufficient. 14 lines of verbiage to avoid answering the question is not.

Again, are you trying to replace GR (or any parts of GR) with simple algebra? Please, answer 'yes' or 'no'. That's all you need to do.

Yes.

[philippeb8]

Can you provide the total precession, and the contribution of each part to the precession, as predicted by your idea?

I would like to specify that the perihelion precession of the planets is not constant. What is constant is the perihelion precession disparity (difference between what is observed and what is predicted by using classical mechanics).

The only contribution that I am considering is that of the gravitational pull of other planets. To give the importance of its contribution in number cannot be done in a timely fashion.

Also, how does your idea match with the measured observations on the precessions of Mars, Icarus, and the various Binary Pulsars.

Mars: 1e-7 radian / cycle

I think perihelion precession disparity of Saturn was famously talked about last year. I can get similar results to what is observed for Saturn but I'll need to run the simulator for a whole night given the slow speed of my outdated laptop.

I do not have enough information on the Icarus asteroid to respond quickly. I would need a precise sampling of its position and velocity. For Binary Pulsars, we'll have to consider their environment in the simulation.

[Tensor]

I would like to specify that the perihelion precession of the planets is not constant. What is constant is the perihelion precession disparity (difference between what is observed and what is predicted by using classical mechanics).

The only contribution that I am considering is that of the gravitational pull of other planets. To give the importance of its contribution in number cannot be done in a timely fashion.

I asked for the contribution of each component of the advance. GR can produce, on it's own, the amount of precession for each of the components. What it appears you are saying here is that, on its own, your idea cannot provide the amount of precession for each of the components, correct? The purpose of the question is to compare your idea, with the observations of the amount of precession for each component. Please provide the amount of precession of each component.

Mars: 1e-7 radian / cycle

I think perihelion precession disparity of Jupiter was famously talked about last year. I can get similar results to what is observed for Jupiter but I'll need to run the simulator for a whole night given the slow speed of my outdated laptop.

You know, I didn't ask for anything about Jupiter. Why did you bring it up? I has nothing to do with my questions.

I do not have enough information on the Icarus asteroid to respond quickly. I would need a precise sampling of its position and velocity.

Why is this required for Icarus, but not Mars? You seemed to get Mars rather quickly.

For Binary Pulsars, we'll have to consider their environment in the simulation.

Why? There are at least seven or eight whose locations, masses, orbital periods, etc are all available enough that GR can make predictions (and have those predictions match observations). What about their environment has to be taken into account and why does your idea have problems where GR doesn't?

I'm also puzzled as to why you are giving the amount of precession in radians per cycle, when almost every source I've seen gives it in arc-seconds per century. Another reason I'm asking for the precession for each of the components, is that when I convert the values you have given, it doesn't seem to match observations. Now, maybe I'm doing the conversion wrong, so your values, with your conversions would be helpful.