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

[Strange]

It's exactly the same for the Y & Z axes.

That can't possibly work. We see galaxies moving away from us at the same direction in all directions. There is no way this can be reproduced by galaxies spreading out from a point (unless that point is coincident with the position of the earth).

I don't believe it will even produce isotropic speed distributions in the X axis, in general.

[Tensor]

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.

And the equations for transverse velocity, or at an oblique trajectory are what? What are the general equations for use with any angle, not just orthogonal?

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).

Well, since you are so sure, you can certainly point out those irregularities, found in current research, that are direction and distance dependent, correct?

[philippeb8]

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.

So if I take the muon decay example we can find here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ativ/muon.html

If I use SR then I will get a survival rate of:
2^(-((10^4/.98c) / (1/√(1-(.98c)^2/c^2) * 1.56e-6)))
0.049

If I use FT then I will get a survival rate of:
2^(-((10^4/.98c) / (1/(1-(.98c)^2/c^2) * 1.56e-6)))
0.55

I am not sure what is the observed survival rate.

Please let me show the length contraction disproof first.

[Strange]

I am not sure what is the observed survival ratė.

You can be 100% sure that experiment matches relativity (*). Therefore your theory is wrong. By a factor of 10. Thanks for confirming that. Can we close the thread now?

(*) Given that the reports of neutrinos travelling a millionth of a percent faster than light made headlines round the world, I think we would have heard of any such contradictory result.

[philippeb8]

You can be 100% sure that experiment matches relativity (*). Therefore your theory is wrong. By a factor of 10. Thanks for confirming that. Can we close the thread now?

(*) Given that the reports of neutrinos travelling a millionth of a percent faster than light made headlines round the world, I think we would have heard of any such contradictory result.

I still have valuable results for the perihelion precession disparity.

And here is the length contraction paradox (cannonball experiment):
http://fornux.com/ft/fr-paradox.pdf

So I'm basically saying the if a cannon shots a cannonball nearly at the speed of light then it should contract, right? But what happens if you have 2 cannons shooting cannonballs, tied with a chain, at a slightly different interval. Will the cannonballs contract independently a make the chain break or the 2 cannonballs and the chain will contract altogether?

[primummobile]

And here is the length contraction paradox (cannonball experiment):
http://fornux.com/ft/fr-paradox.pdf

I'm not trying to nitpick this, but in the introduction you say that "SR predicts infinite mass" and you use that as part of the explanation for why SR has been disproven. But SR predicts infinite mass for something travelling at the speed of light. Since nothing can travel at the speed of light, you will never see an infinite mass. In fact, the infinite mass is exactly why SR says that nothing can travel at the speed of light. That's the reason for the barrier.

[Strange]

I still have valuable results for the perihelion precession disparity.

Sorry, but fudging the numbers to make one result work is no good if your theory has already been shown to be wrong.

And here is the length contraction paradox (cannonball experiment):

This appears to be a variant on this idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox

If you knew anything about relativity, you would probably be familiar with this.

[Strange]

I'm not trying to nitpick this, but in the introduction you say that "SR predicts infinite mass" and you use that as part of the explanation for why SR has been disproven. But SR predicts infinite mass for something travelling at the speed of light. Since nothing can travel at the speed of light, you will never see an infinite mass. In fact, the infinite mass is exactly why SR says that nothing can travel at the speed of light. That's the reason for the barrier.

Yet more evidence that he doesn't know what he is talking about. He is a one-man example of "common misconceptions about relativity".

[philippeb8]

And the equations for transverse velocity, or at an oblique trajectory are what?

The equation for any axis and for a stable observer at position 0 is:

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

I have shown earlier on that the position of the kernel of the universe is given by:
i = - v_f / H_0

Where:
• H_0 = 2.26e-18 s^-1
• v_f is the speed of the observer (speed of the Milky Way + the speed of the visible universe > 6e5 m/s)

What are the general equations for use with any angle, not just orthogonal?

I'm not sure if I understand correctly but it's just a matter of converting polar to Cartesian coordinates.

Well, since you are so sure, you can certainly point out those irregularities, found in current research, that are direction and distance dependent, correct?

The only obvious irregularity that I am aware of is the excessive speed of the tangential galaxies to their cluster and the speed of the tangential stars to the galaxy. But that can be explained by FT.

The non-obvious shape irregularities would have to use FT to simulate an entity (galaxy, cluster or supercluster) independently (with its reverse engineered h) and observe the difference with the observations. I'm really talking about their slight irregular shape that might me observed.

[philippeb8]

I'm not trying to nitpick this, but in the introduction you say that "SR predicts infinite mass" and you use that as part of the explanation for why SR has been disproven. But SR predicts infinite mass for something travelling at the speed of light. Since nothing can travel at the speed of light, you will never see an infinite mass. In fact, the infinite mass is exactly why SR says that nothing can travel at the speed of light. That's the reason for the barrier.

Sorry I used the wrong wording. I wrote this in 2009.

[philippeb8]

Sorry, but fudging the numbers to make one result work is no good if your theory has already been shown to be wrong.

h is not reverse engineered for the solar system anymore, it is calculated based on the Shapely Cluster.

This appears to be a variant on this idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox

If you knew anything about relativity, you would probably be familiar with this.

I knew a lot of thought experiments but I never saw that one.

[tusenfem]

So how does ft deal with relativistic particles at cern, which works excellent with relativity to keep the particles in the circle.

[philippeb8]

So how does ft deal with relativistic particles at cern, which works excellent with relativity to keep the particles in the circle.

Well first Okun couldn't have said it better that the momentum is affect by time dilation, not mass increase:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in...ty#Controversy

Since 2009 I've been saying the same thing independently. But according to FT, the momentum should be:
p = mv / (1 - v^2/c^2)

What is dilated is the time component of the speed (m/s).

[Reality Check]

So if I take the muon decay example we can find here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ativ/muon.html

If I use SR then I will get a survival rate of:
2^(-((10^4/.98c) / (1/√(1-(.98c)^2/c^2) * 1.56e-6)))
0.049

If I use FT then I will get a survival rate of:
2^(-((10^4/.98c) / (1/(1-(.98c)^2/c^2) * 1.56e-6)))
0.55

As Strange has pointed out - you have just invalidated FT!
Muon decay is observed to agree with SR. Your theory predicts a value different from SR. Thus your theory is wrong.

See the Particle Lifetimes section of What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?.

[Reality Check]

But according to FT, the momentum should be:
p = mv / (1 - v^2/c^2).

Q2: Did you really mean to remove the square root from the Lorentz factor or is that a typo?
If you come up with an imaginary factor to use in momentum (and energy?) then you have invalidated FT again because particle accelerators exist that actually work and they use the real Lorentz factor.

We already have at least one error in FT - it gets muon particle lifetimes wrong.
This looks like the next error.

P.S. Still no actual answer to:
Q1: Have you derived gravitational time dilaton from Finite Theory?
If not you have just invalidated your assertion the GR is wrong because you are assuming that GR is correct.

[philippeb8]

As Strange has pointed out - you have just invalidated FT!
Muon decay is observed to agree with SR. Your theory predicts a value different from SR. Thus your theory is wrong.

No because I have the perihelion precession disparity right for all planets, using an h factor directly from the Shapely Cluster. Can you imagine all the calculations that are made in order to obtain that? What about the galactic rotation curve I haven't had a chance to talk about yet?

Besides what about all these paradoxes on SR? We need just one to invalidate the whole theory. The one I posted is a simple logical deduction that doesn't make sense.

Maybe I do not have the kinetic time dilation right but it doesn't validate length contraction and mass increase of SR. Einstein was just extremely lucky to get the right equation for kinetic time dilation in the first place.

[philippeb8]

Q2: Did you really mean to remove the square root from the Lorentz factor or is that a typo?
If you come up with an imaginary factor to use in momentum (and energy?) then you have invalidated FT again because particle accelerators exist that actually work and they use the real Lorentz factor.

That is not an error. Maybe I simply have my first postulate wrong.

We already have at least one error in FT - it gets muon particle lifetimes wrong.
This looks like the next error.

P.S. Still no actual answer to:
Q1: Have you derived gravitational time dilaton from Finite Theory?
If not you have just invalidated your assertion the GR is wrong because you are assuming that GR is correct.

No I haven't derived gravitational time dilation from FT.

[philippeb8]

That is not an error. Maybe I simply have my first postulate wrong.

Or maybe FT is right after all. Special Relativity does not predict all decays correctly:
http://profmattstrassler.com/article...-of-a-b-meson/
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml

[Reality Check]

No because I have the perihelion precession ....

You misunderstand how science works.
If a theory makes a prediction and that prediction fails then that theory is invalid regardless of its other successes.
FT gets muon lifetimes wrong. FT is thus invalid.
FT states that p = mv / (1 - v^2/c^2). Thus particle accelerators cannot work. Particle accelerators work. FT is thus invalid.

[Reality Check]

No I haven't derived gravitational time dilation from FT.

So you are assuming that GR is correct which means that your assertion that GR is wrong is wrong.

[Reality Check]

Or maybe FT is right after all. Special Relativity does not predict all decays correctly:
http://profmattstrassler.com/article...-of-a-b-meson/
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml

And FT remains invalid because neither of those links is about Special Relativity.
They are about the Standard Model of particle physics.

[Reality Check]

Besides what about all these paradoxes on SR?

There are no known paradoxes in SR.

[Reality Check]

Maybe I do not have the kinetic time dilation right but it doesn't validate length contraction and mass increase of SR. Einstein was just extremely lucky to get the right equation for kinetic time dilation in the first place.

Time dilation, length contraction and mass increase do not "validate" each other.
SR predicts that if you have time dilation then you must have length contraction (and mass increase). That is the point of Lorentz covariance (basically the Lorentz transformation) that is carried into GR and relativistic QM, e.g Quantum Electrodynamics which is the most strongly tested theory in physics.

Einstein was not lucky. He was smart. He started with two postulates and came up with SR.

[Tensor]

The equation for any axis and for a stable observer at position 0 is:

snip...

converting polar to Cartesian coordinates.

No, general equations are nothing more than the analytic equations used for all motion. Think of it as it as being able to compute motion and/or transform in any direction. For instance here is a good explanation for how the SR transformations are done, with the general form in equation 3-3. What equations would you use, in your idea, to calculate relative motion between objects that are moving in arbitrary directions (this could be motion in all three cartesian directions at the same time)

The only obvious irregularity that I am aware of is the excessive speed of the tangential galaxies to their cluster and the speed of the tangential stars to the galaxy. But that can be explained by FT.

Specifics please. State which galaxies, which clusters, which stars, how much excessive speed and the predictions of your idea. That whole sentence is nothing more than

The non-obvious shape irregularities would have to use FT to simulate an entity (galaxy, cluster or supercluster) independently (with its reverse engineered h) and observe the difference with the observations. I'm really talking about their slight irregular shape that might me observed.

So, you really don't know. This was just an off the wall claim with no actual support. Unless you can point to a simulation using FT and a paper that shows galactic shapes that match FT predictions, can you? I'm getting the impression that h is something that you put in, depending on the answer you need. Only because you have to reverse engineer it, seemingly for each situation separately.

[Tensor]

That is the point of Lorentz covariance (basically the Lorentz transformation) that is carried into GR and relativistic QM, e.g Quantum Electrodynamics which is the most strongly tested theory in physics.

It always amuses how those that argue about how wrong SR is, do so on computers and through the internet (reaching me through a fiber optic line). Not realizing how dependent those things are on relativistic QED, which itself is dependent on SR. If SR was so wrong it would be quite obvious as they wouldn't be able to tell us how wrong it is on this web site.

[Shaula]

There are no known paradoxes in SR.

There are plenty of paradoxes constructed through misunderstanding or attempting to use verbal reasoning to understand SR. Amazingly (said while rolling eyes and raising eyebrows) they all turn out to go away when you do the maths.

Besides what about all these paradoxes on SR? We need just one to invalidate the whole theory. The one I posted is a simple logical deduction that doesn't make sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox. Or did you forget that in the space of a few posts? You have shown nothing more than that you have not done your background reading. This is a fifty year old question answered at least twice within twenty years of its first proposal.

[tusenfem]

So if I take the muon decay example we can find here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ativ/muon.html

If I use SR then I will get a survival rate of:
2^(-((10^4/.98c) / (1/√(1-(.98c)^2/c^2) * 1.56e-6)))
0.049

If I use FT then I will get a survival rate of:
2^(-((10^4/.98c) / (1/(1-(.98c)^2/c^2) * 1.56e-6)))
0.55

I am not sure what is the observed survival rate.

Wow there is little you actually know about the theory you want to overthrow, that does not bode well.
Muon lifetime measurements and time dilation are under-graduate experiments these days.
Here are some references that might come in handy:

• Easwar, Nalini; Macintire, Douglas A. (1991). "Study of the effect of relativistic time dilation on cosmic ray muon flux – An undergraduate modern physics experiment". American Journal of Physics 59 (7): 589–592. Bibcode 1991AmJPh..59..589E. doi:10.1119/1.16841.
• ^ Coan, Thomas; Liu, Tiankuan; Ye, Jingbo (2006). "A Compact Apparatus for Muon Lifetime Measurement and Time Dilation Demonstration in the Undergraduate Laboratory". American Journal of Physics 74 (2): 161–164. arXiv: physics/0502103. doi:10.1119/1.2135319

[tusenfem]

That is not an error. Maybe I simply have my first postulate wrong.

I would think so because without the square root the beams at CERN will never make a circle in the current setup.
Again, maybe you should try to actually know the theory that you want to overthrow.

[Strange]

No because I have the perihelion precession disparity right for all planets, using an h factor directly from the Shapely Cluster.

Sorry. It doesn't work like that. If you have one experiment that shows your theory is wrong then it is wrong. It doesn't matter how many times you can pretend it comes up with something vaguely like a right answer. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Can you imagine all the calculations that are made in order to obtain that?

So what? Doing a lot of work doesn't make it right.

Besides what about all these paradoxes on SR?

There are no paradoxes in SR; the page I provied showed where your error is. And your theory relies on GR being right anyway.

The one I posted is a simple logical deduction that doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense to you because you don't understand SR.

Einstein was just extremely lucky to get the right equation for kinetic time dilation in the first place.

I don't think "luck" came into it. He understood physics. He wasn't just playing around with formulas and numbers to try and make something fit.

[philippeb8]

Sorry. It doesn't work like that. If you have one experiment that shows your theory is wrong then it is wrong. It doesn't matter how many times you can pretend it comes up with something vaguely like a right answer. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

So we have:


.....................................GR/SR......FT
perihelion precession disparity......1..........1
gravitational light bending..........1..........1
galactic rotation curve..............0..........1
Hubble's law.........................0..........1
black hole...........................0..........1
kinetic time dilation................1..........0

total................................3..........5

0 = can't explain (without inducing eccentric forces, energies or extra dimensions)
1 = can explain


FT has more points than GR/SR.

So what? Doing a lot of work doesn't make it right.

It shows that there is something right about my work. Ignoring this is not right.

There are no paradoxes in SR; the page I provied showed where your error is. And your theory relies on GR being right anyway.

It doesn't make sense to you because you don't understand SR.

I do understand SR perfectly well and it is wrong.

I don't think "luck" came into it. He understood physics. He wasn't just playing around with formulas and numbers to try and make something fit.

Let's talk about the galactic rotation curve so that at least it sticks to this thread.