The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

DeathDart said:
What I am learning is some of the arguments that I will have to address in writing a paper, that is if one of you doesn't launch a logical torpedo that I agree sinks it.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you don't know enough of the maths or physics to recognise that such a torpedo has been launched, and your idea is languishing forty fathoms down.
 
DeathDart said:
The lighting up of isotopes from a Supernova is one argument. Isotopes in interstellar space will glow brighter as they move into gravitationally weak areas near the gT2 threshold. Normal expulsion mechanisms like slow solar winds are too slow. They will only deliver the isotopes into weak gravitational regions only after a very long period of time. Too long a time for most of the isotopes, those that remain will have a very long half life. An isotope with a half life of a 100,000 years becomes an isotope with a half life of 10,000 years in 10X space. That slow rate of decay doesn't produce a lot of energy.

A supernova expels it's isotopes at a high enough velocities that enough isotopes will be remaining when they hit fast space. When the isotopes reach low gravity regions ,time will speed up and they will glow.
Click to expand...

I'll grant you this: you have a vivid imagination. Are you really suggesting that the luminosity of supernova remnants is anomalous? Could you provide some (any) support for this?

A radioactive isotope is like a clock to measure local time. And it is small enough that its mass should not have a big impact on time space's flow. A particles INCREASED half life in an accelerator, was one argument for time dilation.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, and I'm glad you know the theory. So, how do you propose this applies? You are clearly claiming that the half-life of radioactive isotopes in low-gravity regimes radically decreases. That is news to me, and if it's a discovery of yours, well, I see a trip to Sweden in your near future. Assuming, of course, that you can back it up. Please provide citations.

Another argument is the galactic rotation curves. That is the Math I am working on. How does gT2 affect the velocities of stars to explain the velocities without using dark matter. So far my velocities are still too high but my galactic mass for M33 is nearly 1 order less than with dark matter.

If you are expecting Einsteins Field Equations, you are going to have a long wait. The equations could have hardwired assumptions that won't allow faster values of time, without exploding.

At a minimum it would take me several weeks to months, if ever, to understand them well enough to use them.
Click to expand...

You are avoiding the obvious. I (and others) are not asking for "Einstein's Field Equations", at least not unless you are using them (and you claim that you're not). What we are asking for is the math which YOU are using.

So, how's that math coming?
 
DeathDart said:
So there is a conflict between light having the same speed in all reference frames, and light having a fixed speed throughout the universe.
Click to expand...

Well, no. The phrase "fixed speed throughout the universe" seems to indicate that you believe in a "real" or absolute frame of reference. Is this so? If so, I've got to tell you that you need to get out more.
 
DeathDart said:
The lighting up of isotopes from a Supernova is one argument. Isotopes in interstellar space will glow brighter as they move into gravitationally weak areas near the gT2 threshold. Normal expulsion mechanisms like slow solar winds are too slow. They will only deliver the isotopes into weak gravitational regions only after a very long period of time. Too long a time for most of the isotopes, those that remain will have a very long half life. An isotope with a half life of a 100,000 years becomes an isotope with a half life of 10,000 years in 10X space. That slow rate of decay doesn't produce a lot of energy.
Click to expand...

So I've been mulling this over, trying to find a frame of reference (mental, of course) in which this is both rational and apropos. And then it hit me. Your quote only makes sense if you think that a supernova remnant, such as the Crab Nebula, gives off light due to radioactive decay of the remnant itself. You know, "Nuke it till it glows."

Have I got it right? Despite accepted astrophysics, which says the glow comes from electrons excited by the core remnant's radiation, is that what you think?
 
WhatRoughBeast said:
So I've been mulling this over, trying to find a frame of reference (mental, of course) in which this is both rational and apropos. And then it hit me. Your quote only makes sense if you think that a supernova remnant, such as the Crab Nebula, gives off light due to radioactive decay of the remnant itself. You know, "Nuke it till it glows."

Have I got it right? Despite accepted astrophysics, which says the glow comes from electrons excited by the core remnant's radiation, is that what you think?
Click to expand...



Yes, the radiation output increases as the isotopes reach weak regions of gravity. As a gravitational field gets weaker, time will flow faster.


Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but I was trying to figure out what meathead was talking about. Poisson's equations was what he was talking about.

Now it appears, it might get weirder.

Matter's velocity (at least at low masses with very low self generated gravitational fields) may actually increase proportionally as they enter into fast space.

The weird part, is that the speed change may actually be visible, in filamentary structures of 1987A, and possibly other Supernova remnants.

Because of partial cancellation by the space it is in, the filaments original doppler and relativistic shifts have not changed from when (IF) it left time =1 space and entered faster space. To the outside observer it has increased speed without its optical spectra changing.

Some of the filaments apparently have the original velocity+more. Some of them appear to radially extend from the shell collision area. So they are directly traversing our field of view.

Now this could be the material that was very close to the star when it exploded. So this could be radiant energy accelerated material that is just faster then the visible wave. It is nothing definitive. This could also be statistical exception that I pulled out of the haystack.

Look at the later HST images (after the laser surgery) at some of the filaments in the south east corner. From the center to roughly the center of the beads is 4/10 of a light year for the slow 7000Kms material in 2003.

For the faster 19000kms material in 2003 it is about 1 light year radius away from origin. Which is which, I don't know. When it starts to go dim would be a good clue that a majority of the material has either impacted, or entered into faster space, or both.
 
Poisson is exactly what I needed to get the model in the ball park.

It may take me a few days to assimilate it.
 
DeathDart said:
Yes, the radiation output increases as the isotopes reach weak regions of gravity. As a gravitational field gets weaker, time will flow faster.
Click to expand...

Ah. Well, now that we've established that you think the conventional explanation for supernova remnant luminosity is full of bovine excrement, could you please tell us the basis for this belief? Specifically, why is the astrophysics community _wrong_, while you are right?

And no hand-waving or philosophy. Observations and numbers, if you please. At the least, start with an estimate of the shell mass, along with isotopic composition, then show that these conditions will produce enough excitation for long enough to account for observed luminosity/shell size.
 
WhatRoughBeast said:
Ah. Well, now that we've established that you think the conventional explanation for supernova remnant luminosity is full of bovine excrement, could you please tell us the basis for this belief? Specifically, why is the astrophysics community _wrong_, while you are right?

And no hand-waving or philosophy. Observations and numbers, if you please. At the least, start with an estimate of the shell mass, along with isotopic composition, then show that these conditions will produce enough excitation for long enough to account for observed luminosity/shell size.
Click to expand...

The original problem was the flat galactic velocity curves and Dark Matter.

This paragraph is an opinion about SNR shock theory. Reading the researchers papers, I got the impression that they were not real happy with the forward shockwave and reverse shockwave argument. They didn't have a second choice to fall back to. Most of the papers I went through, had at least one area or region where no amount of fiddling would give them a coherent answer.

The idea of faster time was really just science fiction to me. An example being Spin, a science fiction novel by author Robert Charles Wilson. This novel may have stayed in my subconscious.

Any solution that used time to correct the velocity curves would also show up in other places. Supernova remnants make great pictures so I would see them a lot during my searches. Then I found information about 1987a brightening. I ran the numbers and it was close. The brightening was a collision but could it also be another example of time speeding up.

So it was galactic velocity curves suggesting something like faster time, then the SNR 1987a brightening.

One could not exist without the other.
 
The other line that led me in this direction was assigning time to space.

Matter and gravity slow time, but they were not the source of time.

This creates or balances a symmetry, between infinite time at one end and Zero time (Light) at the other end spectrum.
 
On the Origin of Inertia

DeathDart said:
The original problem was the flat galactic velocity curves and Dark Matter.

Any solution that used time to correct the velocity curves would also show up in other places. Supernova remnants make great pictures so I would see them a lot during my searches. Then I found information about 1987a brightening. I ran the numbers and it was close. The brightening was a collision but could it also be another example of time speeding up.

So it was galactic velocity curves suggesting something like faster time, then the SNR 1987a brightening.

One could not exist without the other.
Click to expand...

They are similar, but they are NOT the same.

One, the SNR brightening, represents time moving faster for a small mass as it enters gravitationally weak space.

The other, are large stars orbiting galaxies with high velocities, inconsistent with the square of the distance law.

On the Origin of Inertia, Screaming Monkey Speculation

Inertia is a property of matter, it is not a property of space.

A small mass can travel with incredibly high velocity in empty space.

A star might also be able to do this.

Inertial mass is relative to the presence of other mass.

Two large stars orbiting close to each other will show the correct amount of inertia and velocity.

Two large stars orbiting very far apart where gravity is >6.674E-11 will not show the correct velocities.

Inertia has gone down. The stars are in normal time, but the weak gravitational field has reduced their inertia.

Space does not give mass the properties of inertia, other mass does.

I have read that the Einstein Field equations work well for large masses and strong gravity. But the equations are more difficult to solve, (or down right squirrelly), for weak gravity.

I think that Einstein may have brushed closed to what I am suggesting. but it would have opened up another can of worms. He was often competing against others for a solution, and this may have looked foolhardy.
 
It looks like MOND was at least close, they just could not figure out what caused them to be right. MOND:1 DARK MATTER:0

At this time my calculations are pretty crude for galactic curves, but 6.674E-11ms^2 does seem close. My calculations are probably too messy to change this value but 6.674E-11ms^2 divided by Pi or 2.124E-11 worked pretty good. This is REALLY a guess until I can create multiple GOOD galactic models to check if it stays valid.
 
Ziggurat said:
Imagine that you had a clock next to this atom. Time moves faster for this clock than for us, correct? So to us, the clock would appear to be moving too fast, though not for the atom.

But radiation from the atom IS a clock. Its frequency, as emitted by the atom, has a specific relationship to the speed of the clock sitting next to it. So if the clock appears to us to be ticking too fast, then the radiation will also be shifted to higher frequency, because it's a clock too. So the conclusion that the frequency will be shifted is unavoidable. You CANNOT have time move faster and not shift the frequency as well.

Now, that doesn't mean we get to throw energy conservation out the window. We must address it. But energy conservation doesn't mean that no shift occurs. Rather, energy conservation means that any shift must go hand-in-hand with a change in potential, and this potential must be energy and mass based (ie, gravity). And that's exactly what happens with general relativity.

So we've actually discovered that your theory has an internal contradiction: your time rate theory requires that the frequency shift depends on the strength of the gravitational field, which is the gradient of the gravitational potential. But energy conservation requires that the frequency shift depends on the gravitational potential itself.

General relativity has no such internal contradictions. It has been experimentally tested in many ways. Gravity-dependent time dilation has been measured, and it agrees with the predictions of general relativity. So why do you think we need to replace general relativity with something else? But whatever your dissatisfaction with GR might be, and even if it's wrong, your alternative clearly will not work. It is internally inconsistent, and it doesn't match observations.
Click to expand...

The frequency shift you describe does occur. The problem is the space between the observer and the atom corrects it back to what you would observe (or very close to the normal time value) as if it was next to you.

Now if you look at the clock through a telescope, it will show a faster time flow.
 
Last edited:
DeathDart said:
The frequency shift you describe does occur. The problem is the space between the observer and the atom corrects it back to what you would observe (or very close to the normal time value) if it was next to you.

Now if you look at the clock through a telescope it will show a faster time flow.
Click to expand...

The frequency of the atom is a clock. How can you have one clock running fast and one clock running slow when they're both next to each other? You can't! If the clock shows faster flow, then the frequency of radiation from the atom must increase too. The intervening space cannot "correct" this frequency shift, because it's exactly the same as saying time goes faster or slower. They are inseparable.
 
Ziggurat said:
The frequency of the atom is a clock. How can you have one clock running fast and one clock running slow when they're both next to each other? You can't! If the clock shows faster flow, then the frequency of radiation from the atom must increase too. The intervening space cannot "correct" this frequency shift, because it's exactly the same as saying time goes faster or slower. They are inseparable.
Click to expand...

The mechanical clocks information is not transmitted as wavelength, the light source is sending the information out as a wavelength. The wavelength information is normalized by the space it moves through to get to the observer. Otherwise the universe would be, one big kaleidoscope.
 
Last edited:
DeathDart said:
sol invictus said:
Do you or do you not agree with the following statement:

Radiation emitted by an atom in an excited state located in a region where time flows differently than earth's will, once it reaches earth and is observed, have a different frequency than light emitted by the same kind of atom in the same excited state on earth?

If you agree with that, my statement about absorption lines lines follows trivially (I'll show you why if you still don't understand).

If you don't agree with that, we need to back up yet another step.
Click to expand...
The short answer I don't know, I didn't have teachers and my friends cannot understand this type of discussion, so their are gaps.

I think that as long as the particle is not moving and its time matches the space it is in, the light it emits (when it enters our slower time) should be the same as on Earth. I argue this from conservation of energy.
Click to expand...

The problem is, this is something we observe every day - and those observations prove you wrong. Indeed, that was the whole point of the Pound-Rebka experiment - but it's also observed in cosmology all the time.

And the reasons for that are quite obvious and have been nicely explained by Zig. If time is moving faster for the atom, then it emits light of a higher frequency by definition of "time moving faster for the atom".
 
DeathDart said:
The mechanical clocks information is not transmitted as wavelength, the light source is sending the information out as a wavelength.
Click to expand...

Are you aware of the fact that many clocks - including the most precise known - are based on the frequency of some radiation emitted by atoms?

The wavelength information is normalized by the space it moves through to get to the observer. Otherwise the universe would be, one big kaleidoscope.
Click to expand...

We observe the effect you are denying every day, DD. This is completely standard stuff, and it's extremely well-tested. You might start by reading about the Pound-Rebka experiment.
 
Some people might get the impression that I am saying Einstein was wrong.

This is not correct, at the higher gravitational strengths and high velocities, he is correct.

I really do think that he brushed against his concept, but when it is incomplete and without structure, almost everything about this concept will cause the rational mind to recoil.

I think that this, (if it is true), complements Einstein' General Relativity, not refute it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom