Dark Matter? get over it!

[Strange]

The only warriors I am prepared to take on are those fighting with weapons of reason and logic.

 

I don't think the rules allow you to pick and choose which questions to answer.

 

Apart from that, I think my questions are reasoned and logical so I would appreciate some answers.

[Mordred]

 

 

So it would be nice if you could answer some of the objections to your model:

1. why are you comparing Keplers Law to galaxies, when it is obviously not relevant?

2. Why have you faked the left-hand end of your red curve to match galactic rotation curves?

3. Why does your argument apply to our galaxy, which we dont see in the past? And why doesnt the effect increase for more distant galaxies?

4. How do you account for the gravitational lensing caused by dark matter?

5. How do you explain the large scale structure of the universe without dark matter?

6. How do you explain the motion of galaxy clusters without dark matter?

These questions are deserving of an answer, they are directly applicable to the topic

[beejewel]

 

But that's exactly what has to happen. A circular orbit must satisfy GMm/r² = mv²/r

 

GMm/r² = mv²/r

 

v² = GM/r

 

You "accelerate" with your rocket, but rocket's energy has to go into potential energy as well as kinetic.

 

 

 

Swanson,

 

We could debate if gravity is indeed a force, but let's not go there right now, instead focus on your last contradiction above, where you admit a rocket must accellerate away from the sun in order to reach the mercury orbit, you then admit it must accellerate further to reach Venus orbit, providing the rocket does not turn around and come back home, my understanding is that acelleration + accelleration will result in velocity + velocity.

 

Don't worry, changing the way we think about orbitals won't make the planets fall down, but it could be more fatal for dark matter.

 

PS: i will get around to reply to the other members over the next couple of days, just a little busy right now.

 

Steven

[Mordred]

While your at it, show how your model works with Doppler shift which is used to determine the motion of bodies. Our knowledge of how Doppler shift works is extremely accurate.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Mordred

[Janus]

Swanson,

 

We could debate if gravity is indeed a force, but let's not go there right now, instead focus on your last contradiction above, where you admit a rocket must accellerate away from the sun in order to reach the mercury orbit, you then admit it must accellerate further to reach Venus orbit, providing the rocket does not turn around and come back home, my understanding is that acelleration + accelleration will result in velocity + velocity.

 

Don't worry, changing the way we think about orbitals won't make the planets fall down, but it could be more fatal for dark matter.

 

PS: i will get around to reply to the other members over the next couple of days, just a little busy right now.

 

Steven

There is no contradiction involved, it may seem counter intuitive to start with an acceleration and end up with a lower velocity but it really isn't.

 

If I am in a rocket in the same orbit around the Sun as Mercury is and want to get to Venus' orbit. I fire my engines and accelerate. When I do so, I will increase my velocity.

 

But now I am moving too fast to stay in my original orbit around the Sun and I start to move away from the Sun. But, like a ball being thrown up into the air, I will start to lose speed as I climb away from the Sun against its gravity. At some point, I'll will have lost enough speed, that like the thrown ball, I will stop climbing and begin to fall back to the Sun. I will again gain back that speed I lost climbing away from the Sun. When I get back to my original distance I had at the moment I finished accelerating, I will be moving at the same speed as I was then and in the same direction. I will then repeat the process all over again. Accelerating has put me in an elliptical orbit with a perihelion at my starting orbit and an aphelion at some further distance. The difference between aphelion and perihelion of this new orbit depends on how much I accelerated at the start.

 

If I accelerate by just the right amount, I can make it so that my aphelion is at Venus' orbit. When I get there, I will be lost so much speed climbing away from the Sun that I will be moving slower than Mercury does in its orbit, and thus slower than what it takes to maintain a circular orbit at that distance. If I want to stay at a circular orbit at this distance, I accelerate again and increase my speed up to the required speed.

 

So I accelerated twice, both times increasing my speed, but I also lost speed fighting the Sun's gravity, and the amount of speed I lost doing so is more than the total speed I gained when I accelerated.

 

No contradiction, just simple conservation of energy. It takes energy to move outward from the Sun and I give up that energy at the expense of my speed.

[Mordred]

By the way the rotation curve of a solar system has the Keplarian decline. (Most of the mass in at the Sun). Galaxy rotations do not have Keplarian decline.

 

So I'm not sure why you would apply the solar systems rotation curve in regards to dark matter.

 

Solar system rotation curves don't have anything at all to do with dark matter.

 

The analysis you want to explain is the NFW profile. (That's a pretty serious mistake, when your applying an unrelated model)

Particularly since the two curves are completely different.

(In guidance, if you wish to examine a model that attempts to replace dark matter try MOND)

 

 

Here you should read this.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CCwQFjAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwikis.uit.tufts.edu%2Fconfluence%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F9440479%2Fchemouni_bach_GE_dec07.pdf%3Fversion%3D1&rct=j&q=singular%20isothermal%20sphere%20profile%20of%20spiral%20arms&ei=xNQDVaDFLsfwoATsxoCACQ&usg=AFQjCNGm931PDgYo5WOdtIksZVMLKqwVSQ&sig2=fa628v9sgDG0sloyufaLVg&bvm=bv.88198703,d.eXY

 

The formula you want to explain is

 

[latex]\rho_r=\frac{\sigma^2_v}{2\pi Gr^2}[/latex]

NFW profile (also used for gravitational lensing, in part)

 

There are variations in the above power law profile

Here is a decent paper covering NFW to gravitational lensing

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9908213

 

Here is a good coverage of gravitational lensing

http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/129979.pdf

Edited April 2, 2015 by Mordred

[Robittybob1]

By the way the rotation curve of a solar system has the Keplarian decline. (Most of the mass in at the Sun). Galaxy rotations do not have Keplarian decline.

 

So I'm not sure why you would apply the solar systems rotation curve in regards to dark matter.

 

Solar system rotation curves don't have anything at all to do with dark matter.

 

The analysis you want to explain is the NFW profile. (That's a pretty serious mistake, when your applying an unrelated model)

Particularly since the two curves are completely different.

(In guidance, if you wish to examine a model that attempts to replace dark matter try MOND)

 

 

Here you should read this.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CCwQFjAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwikis.uit.tufts.edu%2Fconfluence%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F9440479%2Fchemouni_bach_GE_dec07.pdf%3Fversion%3D1&rct=j&q=singular%20isothermal%20sphere%20profile%20of%20spiral%20arms&ei=xNQDVaDFLsfwoATsxoCACQ&usg=AFQjCNGm931PDgYo5WOdtIksZVMLKqwVSQ&sig2=fa628v9sgDG0sloyufaLVg&bvm=bv.88198703,d.eXY

 

The formula you want to explain is

 

[latex]\rho_r=\frac{\sigma^2_v}{2\pi Gr^2}[/latex]

NFW profile (also used for gravitational lensing, in part)

 

There are variations in the above power law profile

Here is a decent paper covering NFW to gravitational lensing

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9908213

 

Here is a good coverage of gravitational lensing

http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/129979.pdf

Why is there no Dark Matter in and around our Solar System?

[Mordred]

There is it's influence due to its density is of near zero influence or immeasurable. Simply put not enough locally to measure an influence (in regards to solar system rotation curves). It's local distribution locally is too uniform.

 

By the way excellent question. I recall a good paper on it. I'll try to find it

Found it

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0903

 

The subject on DM influence on solar system rotation curves is tricky to measure. I've started reading a thesis on the subject,

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astro.caltech.edu%2F~apeter%2Fthesis_peter_annika.pdf&rct=j&q=dark%20matter%20profile%20of%20our%20solar%20system&ei=5s4cVeD_H5ayyATFmIGoCQ&usg=AFQjCNHZVhFOuMzADDcEloJB9V3t3jx_Wg&sig2=DBv7xb9cxlaTfV2_GyBZPg

Key note it's not enough to have significant influence on solar system rotation curves. Keplers laws works well as an approximation on solar systems until GR takes effect. Example Mercury.

 

 

 

 

Here is a good coverage of MOND as I mentioned the topic.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.3133

(Lol the thesis above is 296 pages, many posters of alternative models have little or no idea just how much research is involved in the current models) they typically try to correlate basic formulas in some great and wonderful sounding ramification. Not realizing models have numerous cross checks with other models

Edited April 2, 2015 by Mordred

[John Cuthber]

 

It appears Kepler made one rather silly assumption, namely that planets move forward in time which turns out to be wrong.

 

 

I hope that's an April fool joke.

[swansont]

my understanding is that acelleration + accelleration will result in velocity + velocity.

 

Your understanding is in need of an upgrade.

 

What you are ignoring is the acceleration cause by the sun. Janus has given you an explanation of this. It's probably more intuitive to look at this in terms of energy.

[beejewel]

 

Show how you're predicting where each planet will be in future using yours data.

 

I better make it clear that my statement that the planets are moving backwards does not in any way change their orbits or where they will find themselves in the future, and after thinking about it even more, you dont have to change anything in your animation, it's perfect the way it is. imagining how the planets move backwards instead of forwards is purely a state of mind. Stare at the animation long enough and imagine the planets going backwards.

 

 

If you consider a spiral galaxy, it keeps its shape for billions of yrs, and an orbit takes only several million yrs.

If there was no dark matter, and the orbit was Keplerian, the galaxy would 'wind-up', and lose its spiral shape in a couple of orbits.

 

It doesn't matter if its past, present or future, or even retrograde motion for that matter.

As long as a galaxy keeps its spiral shape, there must be hidden mass involved in a particular arrangement.

 

No doubt there is some dark matter in there, like rocks asteroids and planets, but not to the extent theorists are suggesting recently. The galaxy rotation curves certainly look like the velocities of the backwards spiralling orbits I describe in the opening post, which by the way was not intended as an April fools joke .

 

 

So it would be nice if you could answer some of the objections to your model:

1. why are you comparing Kepler’s Law to galaxies, when it is obviously not relevant?

2. Why have you faked the left-hand end of your red curve to match galactic rotation curves?

3. Why does your argument apply to our galaxy, which we don’t see in the past? And why doesn’t the effect increase for more distant galaxies?

4. How do you account for the gravitational lensing caused by dark matter?

5. How do you explain the large scale structure of the universe without dark matter?

6. How do you explain the motion of galaxy clusters without dark matter?

 

1) My understanding is that keplerian laws are applied to galaxies as well, although I understand some modificationa re made to allow for the different mass distribution. 2) Not sure what you mean about faked curve, the curve was a direct plot from the numbers in the table above. 3) Looking at our own galaxy rotation is still on a much larger scale than the planets, and I have not studied it, but I suspect there will be some flattening of the curves at large distances. 4) speculation based on dark matter hypothesis 5) Universe is not expanding in my GP model, it is ground potential falling which causes the redshift, this is evidensed by matter gradually spiralling inwards towards the galactic black hole. I speculate that matter sucked into the black hole is torn apart into individual protons and electrons and ejected dimetrically along the time axis, recycled protons reappearing in the past at the edge of our galaxy to repeat the cycle. 6) Since I don't see the need fo dark matter at this stage, I have never attempted to explain this.

 

Perhaps you could apply your theory to a galaxy, rather than planets and show that it predicts the observed rotational velocities?

 

As you will surely understand, you cannot use the solar system, with a central mass, as an analogy for the distributed mass of a galaxy.

 

Doing this in Ground potential theory is very simple, because relative velocity is simply a function of the difference in potential, the formula is just;

 

[latex] \Delta v = c*(\frac{\Delta \phi}{\Phi}) [/latex]

 

Where [latex] \Delta \phi = ("ground'potential") - ("orbiting'body'surface'potential") [/latex] and [latex] \Phi = ("proton'surface'potential") [/latex]

 

While your at it, show how your model works with Doppler shift which is used to determine the motion of bodies. Our knowledge of how Doppler shift works is extremely accurate.

 

I don't see why doppler shift method would work any differently with my model ?

 

There is no contradiction involved, it may seem counter intuitive to start with an acceleration and end up with a lower velocity but it really isn't.

 

If I am in a rocket in the same orbit around the Sun as Mercury is and want to get to Venus' orbit. I fire my engines and accelerate. When I do so, I will increase my velocity.

 

But now I am moving too fast to stay in my original orbit around the Sun and I start to move away from the Sun. But, like a ball being thrown up into the air, I will start to lose speed as I climb away from the Sun against its gravity. At some point, I'll will have lost enough speed, that like the thrown ball, I will stop climbing and begin to fall back to the Sun. I will again gain back that speed I lost climbing away from the Sun. When I get back to my original distance I had at the moment I finished accelerating, I will be moving at the same speed as I was then and in the same direction. I will then repeat the process all over again. Accelerating has put me in an elliptical orbit with a perihelion at my starting orbit and an aphelion at some further distance. The difference between aphelion and perihelion of this new orbit depends on how much I accelerated at the start.

 

If I accelerate by just the right amount, I can make it so that my aphelion is at Venus' orbit. When I get there, I will be lost so much speed climbing away from the Sun that I will be moving slower than Mercury does in its orbit, and thus slower than what it takes to maintain a circular orbit at that distance. If I want to stay at a circular orbit at this distance, I accelerate again and increase my speed up to the required speed.

 

So I accelerated twice, both times increasing my speed, but I also lost speed fighting the Sun's gravity, and the amount of speed I lost doing so is more than the total speed I gained when I accelerated.

 

No contradiction, just simple conservation of energy. It takes energy to move outward from the Sun and I give up that energy at the expense of my speed.

 

After 500 years of Kepler, I have no doubt that forward motion can be justified, and you have done that carefully above, instead I am suggesting that backwards motion can also be justified. While current theories are workable with forward motion, my ground potential theory just doesn't allow it, because the difference in surface potential between ground and planet demands velocity must increase with height, which it only does when planets move backwards.

 

Some of you guys have linked me a few good papers, and I plan to do some more reading and thinking, so in the mean time, dismiss the idea as an April fools joke or concider it as an option.

 

Steven

 

PS:

 

Thought Experiment

You have an infinitely long roll of string fixed to the ground, you then launch a rocket into space carrying the end of the string, then as soon as you reach the first orbit a mark is made on the roll, the main engine is jettisoned in orbit and the second stage of the rocket proceeds to accellerate with the end of the string to the higher orbit.

 

Does the string become shorter after the first stage has been reached?

Edited April 2, 2015 by beejewel

[Strange]

1) My understanding is that keplerian laws are applied to galaxies as well, although I understand some modificationa re made to allow for the different mass distribution.

 

Your understanding is wrong.

 

2) Not sure what you mean about faked curve, the curve was a direct plot from the numbers in the table above.

 

If it were a plot from the numbers, then it would be a series of straight line segments. If you calculate the orbital velocities then you would get a continously increasing speed as the radius approaches zero. You have included the Sun (which is obviously not orbiting the Sun) and then drawn a "nice curve" to match the predictions for galactic rotation but which does not match the predictions for planetary orbits. That is borderline dishonest.

 

3) Looking at our own galaxy rotation is still on a much larger scale than the planets, and I have not studied it

 

OK. But your argument appears to be that we only see this effect because we are looking at galaxies in the past. This is not true of our own galaxy. There is also no distance (time in the past) relationship with the amount of dark amtter required, which your hypothesis would suggest.

 

4) speculation based on dark matter hypothesis

 

Nope. Observational data. The facts won't just go away because you disagree with them.

 

6) Since I don't see the need fo dark matter at this stage, I have never attempted to explain this.

 

Well, at some point you are going to have to.

 

 

Doing this in Ground potential theory is very simple

 

Good. I suggest you do it then.

[Mordred]

Universe is not expanding in my GP model, it is ground potential falling which causes the redshift,

 

I don't see why doppler shift method would work any differently with my model ?

 

 

With this statement I believe it would be different. Your going to have to prove me wrong. In other words explain how Doppler, gravitational and cosmological redshift would work in your model.

 

Redshifts are the adjustments correlating our measurements to the observer. As such your going to need to show how to define those formulas to your ground potential model.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Mordred

[swansont]

 

1) My understanding is that keplerian laws are applied to galaxies as well, although I understand some modificationa re made to allow for the different mass distribution.

 

You can look and see what Kepler's laws are. Perhaps you can convince yourself that they are not followed. Note the complete absence of "mass distribution" in the laws. Kepler didn't have a mechanism.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion

 

After 500 years of Kepler, I have no doubt that forward motion can be justified, and you have done that carefully above, instead I am suggesting that backwards motion can also be justified. While current theories are workable with forward motion, my ground potential theory just doesn't allow it, because the difference in surface potential between ground and planet demands velocity must increase with height, which it only does when planets move backwards.

 

Direction of motion is not really an issue, because I can choose a coordinate system that swaps v and -v. No big deal.

 

A demand that velocity increase with height is not one of direction but of magnitude, and it is trivially wrong. Earth's orbital speed is 30 km/s. Mars is 24 km/s. Venus is 35 km/s. Those results come about from measurements of orbital radii and periods. Speed decreases with orbital distance.

 

Your model disagrees with observation, thus it is wrong.

[Mordred]

In other words we already consider observational influences involved in the photon path in our measurements. Your stating our current models are wrong because it didn't do so correctly.

 

 

You have positive and negative velocity in the motion of a planet.

 

Doppler shift measures the velocity we currently have for say Pluto.

 

Why don't we notice the negative velocity influence in regards to the Doppler formula?

 

[latex]\frac{\Delta_f}{f} = \frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} = \frac{v}{c}=\frac{E_o}{E}=\frac{hc}{\lambda_o} \frac{\lambda}{hc}[/latex]

 

The above relations above would have to change to fit your ground potential.

 

[latex]f=\frac{c+v_r}{c+v_s}f_o[/latex]

 

Vr is the velocity measured by the source using the sources own proper-time clock(positive if moving toward the source

vs is the velocity measured by the receiver using the sources own proper-time clock(positive if moving away from the receiver)

 

Doesn't sound anything like your ground potential model does it?

 

That's the Doppler formula.

 

What about gravitational redshift?

 

[latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex]

 

Or cosmological redshift

 

[latex]1+Z=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} or 1+Z=\frac{\lambda-\lambda_o}{\lambda_o}[/latex]

 

I don't see how you can fit your ground potential metrics into these formulas. Show me

[swansont]

I disagree, my model does not predict orbital velocities, you input a velocity and get ∆(phi) out, from which you can derive the mass inside the orbit. What I bring to the table is a model in which you the observer directly affect the world in which you live. When you get into a car and drive off at 90 miles an hour you are changing your potential and thereby changing (slightly) the world.

 

Um, you said this just yesterday (emphasis added)

 

After 500 years of Kepler, I have no doubt that forward motion can be justified, and you have done that carefully above, instead I am suggesting that backwards motion can also be justified. While current theories are workable with forward motion, my ground potential theory just doesn't allow it, because the difference in surface potential between ground and planet demands velocity must increase with height, which it only does when planets move backwards.

 

which sounds an awful lot like you are using this to predict velocities. And which is a contradiction to observation.

 

Were you wrong yesterday, or are you wrong today? Only one of these statements can be correct.

 

PS: I think gravity waves might be better detected with atomic clocks, because as the wave passes through the mass of the electron changes by a small amount according to the first law of GP. One would have to detect a change in the rate of several clocks over the period it takes for the wave to pass. I believe space is full of waves, so I doubt you would have to wait years.

 

When you claimed this on twitter I asked for a value. You never provided a prediction of how much the hyperfine splitting would change.

[beejewel]

 

Um, you said this just yesterday (emphasis added)

 

 

which sounds an awful lot like you are using this to predict velocities. And which is a contradiction to observation.

 

Were you wrong yesterday, or are you wrong today? Only one of these statements can be correct.

 

When you claimed this on twitter I asked for a value. You never provided a prediction of how much the hyperfine splitting would change.

 

Obviously you can solve the equation both ways if you know velocity you can find surface potential, or if you know surface potential then you can find velocity, but how do you measure the surface potential of a moving planet?

 

 

Regarding gravity waves, I had trouble finding how much energy they are likely to have, the gravity waves might be like photons, on the order of +- a few volts, or possibly 100's of volts. I tried asking a guy that's working on the LIGO project, but he gave me the answer in terms of LIGO sensitivity, which for pobvious reasons wasn't very helpful. some of the guys here might know how much mass is lost with every orbit when two neutron stars are doing an inspiral, then that energy dissipates at 1/r^2 until it reaches us.

 

Steven

[swansont]

Obviously you can solve the equation both ways if you know velocity you can find surface potential, or if you know surface potential then you can find velocity, but how do you measure the surface potential of a moving planet?

Why are you asking me? This is your model. You made a prediction that you now seem to be saying you aren't able to make with the model. If you can't figure out how it works, how can you expect others to?

 

 

 

Regarding gravity waves, I had trouble finding how much energy they are likely to have, the gravity waves might be like photons, on the order of +- a few volts, or possibly 100's of volts. I tried asking a guy that's working on the LIGO project, but he gave me the answer in terms of LIGO sensitivity, which for pobvious reasons wasn't very helpful. some of the guys here might know how much mass is lost with every orbit when two neutron stars are doing an inspiral, then that energy dissipates at 1/r^2 until it reaches us.

You mean electron volts? Photons can easily range from a very small fraction of an eV (e.g. ~10 micro-eV in a microwave oven) or up to millions of eV and beyond. Always a positive number, though.

 

How is it you can be confident this can be measured if you don't know the size of the effect?

[Strange]

 

I have more work to do in this area, so I don't want to commit at this stage to define all the particles.

 

I think you need to answer all the obvious and devastating flaws in your "dark matter" hypothesis before moving on.

[swansont]

Hmm,

 

I recall we have been down this path before, and it wasn't very constructive, so please let me change the direction of this thread.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Since this "change in direction" just puts us back into another discussion, those posts have been moved to the other thread. Either defend the thread subject or stop posting in it.

[beejewel]

That thread splitting confuses me, but it's your forum and I shall get over it ..

 

Happy to stick with the planetary motions, but would like emphasise my belief that understanding the large scale universe starts with understanding Hydrogen, where it came from and how it combines according to specific rules to form the elements, stars and planets. Hydrogen is IMHO the elementary building block of nature not quarks.

 

I went back to my original table of planetary motions and added some columns.

 

Relative potential to Sun if planets move forward

 

Formula = (forward velocity) * (proton potential)/c

 

Relative potential to Sun if planets move backward

 

Formula = (backward velocity) * (proton potential)/c

 

Absolute potential of Sun and planets (when backwards)

 

Here I have used ground potential as the bench mark and added or subtracted the other bodies potential depending on weather it is closer or further to the sun than earth.

 

 

My proposal that planets move backwards seems simple and consistent with relativity theory, as space curvature ought to decrease with increasing radius from the sun.

 

The orbital motion of our planets may be confusing the mind, because there are too few planets for us to see a pattern in the arms of our planetary system. mercury appears to be spinning around in a forward direction with Mars slowly following, while the real motion is actually Mercury spinning backwards with Mars slowly overtaking it, and Earth running past in the outside lane.

 

As mentioned above, when we look at the spiral arms of galaxies there probably aren't any easily visible stars that move as slow as Mercury, so what we see are a string of stars that move increasingly faster as the radius increases. there is also the relative velocity of the galaxy as a whole to concider.

 

 

Summarising herewith

Step by step I have shown how the mass of the electron is related to the mass of the proton by a function of gamma, I then show using basic algebra that four velocity is a function of a bodies surface potential, I then go on to show that relative velocity is a function of relative surface potential.

 

I then propose that ground potential can be used to calculate the mass of galaxies by measuring the relative velocity between Earth and stars in the arms of the galaxies, and suggest that measured velocities broadly agree with ground potential, because star orbital velocity ought to increase as a function of distance from the galactic nucleus.

 

This finding has brought Keplers law into question, because like galaxies, planets around the Sun ought to behave in the same way, and after concidering this problem, i realised that the planets do indeed move backwards i.e. receeding from the Sun.

 

Admittedly 1st. of April was a bad day to share the news, but ho knows, maybe Kepler was the real joker

 

Steven

More on the relative movement of observed galaxies..

 

GPT determines local Earth ground potential to be 930,377,000 Volts give or take a few hundred volts, and when we observe a distant spiral galaxy we can assume that there is a dense nucleus in there which is most likely a black hole. We know from GPT that the surface potential of a black hole is half the protons surface potential and that's 469 MV, further we know that because the distant galaxy we are looking at is in the past and moving away from us, it must on average have a higher potential than our galaxy.

 

Therefore when we look at the galaxy side on, there must be a point on the radius which lies exactly at ground potential, which means a point where the relative velocity is zero. In receeding Galaxies this point lies closer to the galactic center than Earth's distance to the galactic centre in the Milky Way, assuming a similar size galaxy.

 

Stars with higher surface potential than GP are receeding from us, and stars with lower potential than GP are approaching us.

 

Essentially all visible galaxies should have stars with surface potentials ranging from 469 million volts at the black hole to 938 million volts at the edges where only Hydrogen nuclei exist.

 

 

Steven

 

 

Edited April 5, 2015 by beejewel

[swansont]

You haven't explained how your numbers back up your prediction that planets move faster the "higher" they are. Also why the direction of motion actually matters is not clear. Speed is a scalar.

[beejewel]

 

 

You haven't explained how your numbers back up your prediction that planets move faster the "higher" they are. Also why the direction of motion actually matters is not clear. Speed is a scalar.

 

Speed is a scalar, but velocity is a vector.

 

GPT says [latex] \Delta v = c(\frac{\Delta \phi}{\Phi})[/latex]

 

In this case [latex] \Delta \phi [/latex] means (Ground-Potential) - (Surface Potential of Other Body), so in the case where the SPOB is higher than GP, the velocity vector is negative i.e. receeding. In the case where SPOB is lower than GP the velocity vector is positive and the body will be approaching.

 

This is just a simple transformation, you sit on the platform and see me approaching on the train, you determine my velocity to be c*[(GP-TP)/PP] ie negative, while I determine c*[(TP-GP)/PP] to be positive.

 

In the case of orbital motion we have to talk about speed, but this doesn't change the fact that Keplers speed comes out wrong.

 

On the subject of potential increasing with height I defined this earlier by stating that an apple falling off a branch never fails to arrive in it's own future, this simple thought experiment is empitrical proof that the arrow of time points in the direction of lower potential, the past being up up and away, the present being the observers surface potential and the future being inwards.

 

This leads to my understanding that the passage of time is the result of a gradual decline in the observers surface potential, which comes about because we are standing on a decaying planet Earth. The decay of the naturally occurring radioactive isotopes are responsible for the slow but gradual decay.

 

Assuming 13.8 billion years since, well let's call it the beginning, we have fallen about 8 million volts in total, thats a tiny 0.00057 Volts per annum or 0.5 mV. which works out to about 1 Volt since the Roman empire reigned and a massive 50 kV since Dinosaurs reigned.

 

PS: at the time of the dinosaurs 100 million years ago I estimate the electron mass was 0.506 meV

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.506%3D%28%28938.272-x%29%2F2%29*√%281-%28x%5E2%2F938.272%5E2%29%29

 

Steven

Edited April 5, 2015 by beejewel

[michel123456]

(...)

On the subject of potential increasing with height I defined this earlier by stating that an apple falling off a branch never fails to arrive in it's own future, this simple thought experiment is empitrical proof that the arrow of time points in the direction of lower potential, the past being up up and away, the present being the observers surface potential and the future being inwards.

(...)

That part looks correct to me.

[swansont]

Speed is a scalar, but velocity is a vector.

 

GPT says [latex] \Delta v = c(\frac{\Delta \phi}{\Phi})[/latex]

 

In this case [latex] \Delta \phi [/latex] means (Ground-Potential) - (Surface Potential of Other Body), so in the case where the SPOB is higher than GP, the velocity vector is negative i.e. receeding. In the case where SPOB is lower than GP the velocity vector is positive and the body will be approaching.

We're talking about orbital speeds. How are you defining a positive velocity?

 

 

 

This is just a simple transformation, you sit on the platform and see me approaching on the train, you determine my velocity to be c*[(GP-TP)/PP] ie negative, while I determine c*[(TP-GP)/PP] to be positive.

In each case, the other is approaching. We each determine the other's speed to be negative, if you are defining "approaching" as negative. otherwise, all we have to do is reverse the coordinate system (or the observers) and get the opposite answer.

 

 

In the case of orbital motion we have to talk about speed, but this doesn't change the fact that Keplers speed comes out wrong.

Except that Kepler's equations aren't wrong. They work as expected for the solar system.

 

 

On the subject of potential increasing with height I defined this earlier by stating that an apple falling off a branch never fails to arrive in it's own future, this simple thought experiment is empitrical proof that the arrow of time points in the direction of lower potential, the past being up up and away, the present being the observers surface potential and the future being inwards.

 

This leads to my understanding that the passage of time is the result of a gradual decline in the observers surface potential, which comes about because we are standing on a decaying planet Earth. The decay of the naturally occurring radioactive isotopes are responsible for the slow but gradual decay.

 

Assuming 13.8 billion years since, well let's call it the beginning, we have fallen about 8 million volts in total, thats a tiny 0.00057 Volts per annum or 0.5 mV. which works out to about 1 Volt since the Roman empire reigned and a massive 50 kV since Dinosaurs reigned.

 

PS: at the time of the dinosaurs 100 million years ago I estimate the electron mass was 0.506 meV

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.506%3D((938.272-x)%2F2)*√(1-(x^2%2F938.272^2))

 

Steven

Which is all part of the discussion that I moved to the other thread. Discuss it there.