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

[Reality Check]

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.

That gravitational time dilation is the direct cause of the superposed gravitational potentials is a result of General Relativity. Your postulate is that GR is correct and you have just stated that you cannot show the GR is wrong.

GR is a non-linear theory, i.e. gravity cannot be superposed. This has nothing to do with gravitational time dilation.

No obvious answer to:

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.

[philippeb8]

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.

I apologize but I am not sure what you are referring to when you say "component".

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 meant: Saturn. But it was not part of your question, I apologize.

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

The solar system is already in my simulator.

Oh and to answer your question correctly the observed perihelion precession disparity is:
Mars: 1.2e-7 radian / cycle

I got the result from table 1 of:
http://fizika.hfd.hr/fizika_a/av10/a19p197.ps

And I divided it by:
(53.1915*360/2π*3600)

"53.1915" was taken from the "Revolution per century" of:
http://mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm

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 just need to know their mass, position and velocity so that I can put them in my simulator.

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.

My simulator uses the most basic measurement unit system. If I were to use arcsec per century I would require a table to match the revolutions per century of each planet.

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.

I am more than happy to help but it is not clear to me what a component is.

[Shaula]

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.

Yes that was my whole point. You got a junk prediction then fixed it with a fudge factor, the velocity. Then claimed that your theory with this fudge factor was proved. You started with the premise that FT was true and proved you could juggle figures and add stuff in to avoid immediately disproving it. I don't see that as compelling evidence for your theory.

[philippeb8]

Yes that was my whole point. You got a junk prediction then fixed it with a fudge factor, the velocity. Then claimed that your theory with this fudge factor was proved. You started with the premise that FT was true and proved you could juggle figures and add stuff in to avoid immediately disproving it. I don't see that as compelling evidence for your theory.

It's an induction, just like dark energy was induced in GR. But I think FT and the visible universe having a velocity is more convincing than GR and dark energy.

[Strange]

But I think FT and the visible universe having a velocity is more convincing than GR and dark energy.

It doesn't really matter what you think. But if you find GR so unconvincing, why are you basing your theory on it?

If GR is wrong you cannot just assume there is gravitational time dilation. You have to show that gravitational time dilation is predicted by your theory.

This is a fallacy known as begging the question.

[tusenfem]

I still have no idea what FT is actually, apart from a strange time dilation equation and a non constant speed of light, (and then we have not even discussed what is in the youtube vid about the spacecraft at speed c-ε with light send out in the forward and backward direction and the latter having infinite velocity ....)

The Hubble law that you "proved" with FT was just some strange math where you got a non-sensical "centre of the universe" which apparently proves the Hubble law?

For all I care this is junk.

[philippeb8]

It doesn't really matter what you think. But if you find GR so unconvincing, why are you basing your theory on it?

If GR is wrong you cannot just assume there is gravitational time dilation. You have to show that gravitational time dilation is predicted by your theory.

This is a fallacy known as begging the question.

I meant that part of GR is wrong but I agree with the gravitational time dilation being proportional to the gravitational potential.

Einstein was helped by Minkowski, Schwarzschild and many other scientists so I am not sure really who determined that the gravitational time dilation is proportional to the gravitational potential.

[philippeb8]

I still have no idea what FT is actually, apart from a strange time dilation equation and a non constant speed of light, (and then we have not even discussed what is in the youtube vid about the spacecraft at speed c-ε with light send out in the forward and backward direction and the latter having infinite velocity ....)

The Hubble law that you "proved" with FT was just some strange math where you got a non-sensical "centre of the universe" which apparently proves the Hubble law?

Sorry for the misunderstanding but if I apply FT on the scale of the universe, I can put a meaning to the Hubble's law. The galaxies are traveling in the same direction but at different speeds. For example:


G1 -->
....G2 ---->
........G3 -------->


Suppose the Milky Way is G2. So G3 is traveling faster than G2 and G2 is traveling faster than G1. But from our point of view we see G1 and G3 traveling away from G2. It is true for G3 but for G1 this is because G2 is the one traveling away from G1.

[utesfan100]

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

Would it be incorrect to say that this value is the value you calculated to make the precession of Mercury match observation?

Would it be incorrect to say that this h value introduces unexplained differences in the precession of Venus and Earth?

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.

I am still not sure of your Milky Way h value calculation, particularly for a mass of 10e47 kg. I get my values from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

Milky way mass: 1.0-1.5e12 Solar Masses * 2.0e30 kg/sun = 2.0-3.0e42 kg
Distance: 8.0-8.6 kparsec = 2.5-2.7e20 meters

h=0.7-1.2e22kg/m for the Milky Way

This is much less than the h value you reversed engineered, by 5 orders of magnitude. I will suggest that I have already found an out, with the h value of the shapely super cluster. This would become the most precise measurement of m/d for this object yet.

Are you ready to argue that the precession of planets in our solar system is based on the gravity from an object so far away?

[Strange]

I meant that part of GR is wrong but I agree with the gravitational time dilation being proportional to the gravitational potential.

The you have to prove that part of GR is wrong. You have to prove that gravitational time dilation occurs in your new version of GR.

You cannot just pick and choose which bits of a theory you want to use and ignore the rest.

[Strange]

G1 -->
....G2 ---->
........G3 -------->


Suppose the Milky Way is G2. So G3 is traveling faster than G2 and G2 is traveling faster than G1. But from our point of view we see G1 and G3 traveling away from G2. It is true for G3 but for G1 this is because G2 is the one traveling away from G1.

That makes no sense. What is G1 moving away from (or relative to)? Are you suggesting some fixed centre of the universe?

[philippeb8]

Would it be incorrect to say that this value is the value you calculated to make the precession of Mercury match observation?

Incorrect. To match the observed perihelion precession disparity for all planets I use:
6.7e26 kg/m

Would it be incorrect to say that this h value introduces unexplained differences in the precession of Venus and Earth?

Incorrect. I already compared these values with what is observed in:
http://fizika.hfd.hr/fizika_a/av10/a19p197.ps

Or:
Mercury: 5e-7 radian / cycle
Venus: 2.6e-7 radian / cycle
Earth: 1.9e-7 radian / cycle
Mars: 1.2e-7 radian / cycle

I am still not sure of your Milky Way h value calculation, particularly for a mass of 10e47 kg. I get my values from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

Milky way mass: 1.0-1.5e12 Solar Masses * 2.0e30 kg/sun = 2.0-3.0e42 kg
Distance: 8.0-8.6 kparsec = 2.5-2.7e20 meters

h=0.7-1.2e22kg/m for the Milky Way

This is much less than the h value you reversed engineered, by 5 orders of magnitude. I will suggest that I have already found an out, with the h value of the shapely super cluster. This would become the most precise measurement of m/d for this object yet.

Then you are right and I apologize for misleading you. Thank you for your observation! If I can have a reference I could add it to the acknowledgement of my paper.

Are you ready to argue that the precession of planets in our solar system is based on the gravity from an object so far away?

Yes, with conviction.

[philippeb8]

That makes no sense. What is G1 moving away from (or relative to)? Are you suggesting some fixed centre of the universe?

Yes exactly. I call it the kernel of the universe in the aforementioned post.

[utesfan100]

Why is there a factor of 2 in the h required to explain precession and the h required to explain the observed near-earth time dilation?

[Strange]

Yes exactly. I call it the kernel of the universe in the aforementioned post.

Oh, in the one I stopped reading at the first egregious error. How do you account for the observed isotropy if everything is moving in the same direction?

[Strange]

Why is there a factor of 2 in the h required to explain precession and the h required to explain the observed near-earth time dilation?

Numerology?

[philippeb8]

The you have to prove that part of GR is wrong. You have to prove that gravitational time dilation occurs in your new version of GR.

You cannot just pick and choose which bits of a theory you want to use and ignore the rest.

I'm showing that length contraction and mass increase are not necessary to explain the observed phenomenons of the universe. Although I don't agree with the equation of time dilation of SR, I do agree with the gravitational time dilation of GR.

Please understand that I only have 30 days to prove my theory so I cannot go in depth with the mathematics of SR / GR.

[Strange]

I'm showing that length contraction and mass increase are not necessary to explain the observed phenomenons of the universe. Although I don't agree with the equation of time dilation of SR, I do agree with the gravitational time dilation of GR.

Please understand that I only have 30 days to prove my theory so I cannot go in depth with the mathematics of SR / GR.

Are you able to prove that gravitational time dilation occurs, while at the same time proving that length contraction, etc. do not?

If not, you are just making up fairy stories. You might as well start with the postulate that invisible unicorns move the planets around the sun.

[Shaula]

Sorry for the misunderstanding but if I apply FT on the scale of the universe, I can put a meaning to the Hubble's law. The galaxies are traveling in the same direction but at different speeds. For example:

How does that 'explain' H0 more usefully than expansion?

And you seem to have missed Tusenfem's point. Your model gives a nonsensical answer which you then handwave away and claim that this handwaving makes your model right because you have chosen to associate it with an observed phenomenon (with no evidence to do that)

[philippeb8]

Why is there a factor of 2 in the h required to explain precession and the h required to explain the observed near-earth time dilation?

Since the h of Shapely Cluster contribution is:
8.1e26 kg/m

And that the reverse engineered h of the perihelion precession disparity in my simulator is:
6.7e26 kg/m

I would assume the uncertainty resides in the reverse engineered h for the satellites. Maybe the spin of the Earth plays an important role in the result I got.

Eureka!

[philippeb8]

How does that 'explain' H0 more usefully than expansion?

The speed of the galaxies is contracting. So the leading galaxies gain in speed the farther they are so it makes them "speed up". It's like looking at a movie on fast forward. But they might come back as fast as they left, depending on whether the invisible universe is empty or not.

And you seem to have missed Tusenfem's point. Your model gives a nonsensical answer which you then handwave away and claim that this handwaving makes your model right because you have chosen to associate it with an observed phenomenon (with no evidence to do that)

The article that I posted was found after I concluded the visible universe has a velocity of its own. I just posted the article to make people aware of it.

[philippeb8]

Are you able to prove that gravitational time dilation occurs, while at the same time proving that length contraction, etc. do not?

If not, you are just making up fairy stories. You might as well start with the postulate that invisible unicorns move the planets around the sun.

Hahaha (sorry).

I'm not able to prove gravitational time dilation is proportional to the gravitational potential that is why it is a postulate.

Furthermore I proved in my book with a thought experiment that length contraction makes no sense. Maybe and I post the pages if there is interests.

[Shaula]

The speed of the galaxies is contracting.

Makes no sense.

Your 'explanation' of the Hubble constant is not useful, adds nothing to our current understanding and seems ot be a set of handwaves. Sorry but I see no compelling reason for you to believe that your version adds to our understanding of expansion and several reasons to believe that it in fact detracts from it.

[Strange]

I'm not able to prove gravitational time dilation is proportional to the gravitational potential that is why it is a postulate.

That is ludicrous; a postulate is supposed to be like an axiom. Something so simple that it can be assumed to be true. Gravitational time dilation definitely doesn't fall into that category.

Furthermore I proved in my book with a thought experiment that length contraction makes no sense.

Does your thought experiment explain why it is contradicted by real experiments?

[philippeb8]

Oh, in the one I stopped reading at the first egregious error. How do you account for the observed isotropy if everything is moving in the same direction?

The visual isotropy or the cosmic microwave background radiation? If the former then it's what I previously mentioned:

G1 -->
....G2 ---->
........G3 -------->


Suppose the Milky Way is G2. So G3 is traveling faster than G2 and G2 is traveling faster than G1. But from our point of view we see G1 and G3 traveling away from G2. It is true for G3 but for G1 this is because G2 is the one traveling away from G1.

[Tensor]

Although I don't agree with the equation of time dilation of SR, I do agree with the gravitational time dilation of GR.

Then you want to explain why the two effects can be measured separately. If you don't agree with SR time dilation, then by all means, explain why predictions using those equations match observations in the muon experiments and the velocity corrections in GPS.

Please understand that I only have 30 days to prove my theory so I cannot go in depth with the mathematics of SR / GR.

That is not our problem. You are the one claiming there is a problem with SR/GR equations. As a result, it's up to you to show it.

I'll have the answer to your last reply to my post shortly.

[Tensor]

The visual isotropy or the cosmic microwave background radiation? If the former then it's what I previously mentioned:

G1 -->
....G2 ---->
........G3 -------->


Suppose the Milky Way is G2. So G3 is traveling faster than G2 and G2 is traveling faster than G1. But from our point of view we see G1 and G3 traveling away from G2. It is true for G3 but for G1 this is because G2 is the one traveling away from G1.

Then how do you explain the motion orthogonal to the motion you show? For instance, you are showing motion in the x axis. How does all this play out when you have motion on the y and z axis? There would appear to be a transverse component, how does that work exactly? What is the limit of visibility for such transverse motion? Note, I only asked about orthogonal motion, but there would be a whole range of motion, to use an example, form 0 to 90 degrees. Other quadrants, both above and below the plane, would have their own motions.

[tusenfem]

Please show us observational proof that your time dilation is correct.
As this is THE cornerstone of your idea, I think it should be pretty simple to prove it.

[philippeb8]

Then how do you explain the motion orthogonal to the motion you show? For instance, you are showing motion in the x axis. How does all this play out when you have motion on the y and z axis? There would appear to be a transverse component, how does that work exactly? What is the limit of visibility for such transverse motion? Note, I only asked about orthogonal motion, but there would be a whole range of motion, to use an example, form 0 to 90 degrees. Other quadrants, both above and below the plane, would have their own motions.

It's exactly the same for the Y & Z axes. Let's assume the kernel of the universe is at [-1e100, -1e100, -1e100] with a galaxy having an initial speed vector of [1e1, 1e1, 1e1], then the galaxy is traveling away in an oblique trajectory and is gaining speed the father away it gets from the kernel of the universe.

I'm sure there is a slight irregularity in the shape of the galaxies, the clusters or the superclusters that could tell us the direction we're going (if we were going to use FT to represent the universe).

[utesfan100]

It's exactly the same for the Y & Z axes. Let's assume the kernel of the universe is at [-1e100, -1e100, -1e100] with a galaxy having an initial speed vector of [1e1, 1e1, 1e1], then the galaxy is traveling away in an oblique trajectory and is gaining speed the father away it gets from the kernel of the universe.

I'm sure there is a slight irregularity in the shape of the galaxies, the clusters or the superclusters that could tell us the direction we're going (if we were going to use FT to represent the universe).

Actually, I would expect some form of density gradient, with the volume near the kernel more dense than the area further away. I suppose other effects are possible as well.

All evidence I have seen indicates a homogenous universe. I will grant that the CMBR is evidence for a preferred reference frame to measure our absolute velocity. We can then say we are moving at 627±22 km/s in the direction of galactic longitude l = 276±3°, b = 30±3°.

What evidence do you have that there is a preferred location, a kernel, within this frame to measure our absolute position? I would be happy with the direction to the kernel on the celestial sphere; as the distance to this object might be much harder to estimate.