Is the Hubble Shift a relativistic illusion?

[beecee]

1 hour ago, captcass said:

Yes, but, it isn't, is it? Easily explained? We only have greatly flawed theories and are stuck going nowhere. Everyone is trying to find gap fillers on a dead end path.

Why isn't it? Because of DM? GR accommodates that OK....DE? In an expanding universe, DE and acceleration makes perfect sense, as I'm sure someone of your learning already knows. You seem to be looking and trying to find excuses under every little rock or pebble.

Quote

Anyway, I don't debate the spiritual things, I teach them if someone wants to know. They are not required to discuss the effects in time and I have already explained where I am founded. This is not the right place to continue that discussion anyway.

Agreed, but again, vixra hasn't what you will call a reputable reputation, and every point you have put so far has been explained by the other experts. In my opinion the beauty of the BB and GR is how they compliment each other and go hand in glove. That alone, besides the incredible successful predictions (gravitational waves) has it still standing in good stead.

[captcass]

Vixra is just a repository, not a "publisher". All kinds of junk is deposited there as well as reputable papers. I am not claiming to be "published".

I would remind you that the science is part of the illusion.

GR does not work on the galactic scale. Everyone knows that. Hence DM.

 

[beecee]

7 hours ago, captcass said:

I would remind you that the science is part of the illusion.

Science is not an illusion: In fact  science more as an empirically based revelation and debunker of old long held mythical beliefs and a never ending path to more and more knowledge..

Quote

GR does not work on the galactic scale. Everyone knows that. Hence DM.

GR accommodates DM without any problem and obviously also works as per gravitational lensing on the galactic scale and of course the prediction of gravitational radiation. Obviously you are aware that  GR has an overwhelming amount of observational and experimental evidence to support it. Therefor it would have been totally amiss to throw out GR on one anomaly, that indeed was fudged with DM and has since been evidenced with the Bullet cluster observation and other powerful inferences such as gravitational lensing etc.  To have automatically assume that GR was wrong would have been crazy. Again GR like Newtonian physics works admirably well within its zone of applicability.

Edited September 22, 2017 by beecee

[captcass]

Sorry, the entire creation is an illusion. I think you have it backward, DM accommodates GR. Without DM, GR does not work. I do not think my approach is inconsistent with any of GR's proofs. If you know of any, please let me know.

[Strange]

7 hours ago, captcass said:

GR does not work on the galactic scale. Everyone knows that. Hence DM.

 

You mean Newtonian gravity doesn't work on galactic scales? After all, you don't need GR to determine that there is a problem. 

But what about all the other evidence that dark matter is some form of matter. 

6 minutes ago, captcass said:

Sorry, the entire creation is an illusion. 

Your god is a trickster and liar like Loki, then?

Edited September 22, 2017 by Strange

[captcass]

It is being used to explain the rotational velocities as a gravitational effect, and this ties it to GR. Without DM, gravity as we now accept it does not explain the rotational velocities. This is the issue I am addressing. It just takes a slightly different view of what GR is describing.

[Strange]

On 21/09/2017 at 3:31 AM, captcass said:

The effect I am looking for would be subtle and I just see no way to check for it yet. 

So it is "subtle" but causes a large and easily measured effect?

On 21/09/2017 at 3:31 AM, captcass said:

The uncertainties alone are too big and if I am reading the table correctly the mass of individual stellar systems isn't compared or considered.

I don't get that. There is a huge difference from the rotation speeds predicted by Newtonian gravity and yet the effect predicted by your model is less than the error bars?

The discrepancy in rotation curves is not dependent on the mass of orbiting particles  it applies equally to stars and hydrogen atoms  

So does this mean that your model predicts an effect too small to be measured? But the actual effect is measurable therefore your model is wrong. 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

It is being used to explain the rotational velocities as a gravitational effect, and this ties it to GR. Without DM, gravity as we now accept it does not explain the rotational velocities.

Sigh.  GR is not needed here. MOND-like theories don't work. There are multiple lines of evidence indicating that dark matter is some form of matter. It is very dangerous to let your baseless beliefs blind you to the facts. 

[captcass]

No. The difference between 2 stellar masses would be too small. We are talking about an evolution of the continuum, not particles moving through space. All particles, including gas particles. sharing a rate of time are evolved forward at the same rate and so have the same velocity. 

If you would know the Creator, know yourself.

[beecee]

31 minutes ago, captcass said:

If you would know the Creator, know yourself.

As has already been inferred, it appears you are letting your mythical non scientific beliefs,  and obvious agenda, get in the way of the validity and success of GR within its zone of applicability. When you accept that instead of ignoring pertinent concepts and the successful predictions, then you may see the light. 

57 minutes ago, captcass said:

Sorry, the entire creation is an illusion. I think you have it backward, DM accommodates GR. Without DM, GR does not work. I do not think my approach is inconsistent with any of GR's proofs. If you know of any, please let me know.

The creation aspect certainly is a delusion with absolutely no evidence to support it. And GR obviously supports the addition of DM, which in itself is now well supported.

I found an excellent answer to the question of GR and DM.......

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/222275/relation-of-general-relativity-to-dark-matter-and-dark-energy

Quote

To say that general relativity predicted dark matter is something of a stretch, but it is not entirely wrong either. Originally it was not a prediction but rather an auxiliary hypothesis introduced to account for theoretical discrepancy with the observed motion of stars in galaxies. In other words, it was analogous to the discrepancy in the motion of Uranus, or in the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, with what was predicted by Newton's theory of gravity. Responses to Uranus and Mercury anomalies were correspondingly predictions of hypothetical planets Neptune and Vulcan, and while the former worked out, the latter famously did not. What happened with dark matter was analogous to the situation with Neptune and not with Vulcan, and in this sense general relativity predicted the presence of extra matter since we can reliably observe it now rather than just infer its existence. There were also alternative responses, like MOND, that did not work out, or at least they worked worse than the dark matter.

In any respect, GR still accommodates DM without any problem, and obviously the further validation needed is the nature and makeup of DM itself.

Edited September 22, 2017 by beecee

[captcass]

Let's just agree to disagree.

[beecee]

10 minutes ago, captcass said:

Let's just agree to disagree.

Probably wise at this time, but as I have a habit of remarking to all those "experts" that inevitable try and chop down Einstein and GR, ( we call it tall poppy syndrome where I come from  ) forums such as this are open to all and sundry and the many agendas, missions etc that individuals may have, and such claims on these forums mean absolutely nothing in the greater scheme of things. Mainstream still accept GR and DM as compatible, along with the BB and the fact that each compliments the other admirably. 

My tip is that when we finally have access to a validated QGT, it will encompass the BB and GR, and simply extend the parameters outside the parameters in which each is valid.

Edited September 22, 2017 by beecee

[captcass]

I find it sad that a forum such as this has so many mean spirited commenters. If I looked at a thread and it seemed nonsense to me, I would just ignore it. I would see no merit in meanness. If I saw a thread I thought had merit, I would try to contribute to it.

This is why I like Mordred. When I put up my other paper, he stuck with me, seeing me through my own blindness until I could see what he and, sorry, I would have to look to get his moniker and anyone can do that, were showing me.

This time he started off curt, but he thought I was back with the same stupid paper. When he realized I wasn't, he tried to help and will stick to it until I can see the error of my ways. He likes to help. If he can't find the error, better for me.

So..........

[Mordred]

The comments made by the others are valid, my technique is my own. Though others may or may not choose to use the same techniques. In some case the technique of pointing out flaws suffice in others, greater effort is required via showing a better direction in self studies, ie providing a direction to solutions. (Though that breaks down on time availability) not everyone can spend as much time as I do formulating my replies. ( this is after all volunteer efforts on everyones part)

 As Strange pointed out GR has very little to do with rotation curves,.

Rotation curves involve a large scale mass distribution, any mass distribution restricted to a plane regardless of values of that mass will lead to a Keplarian decline (Newtonian physics) no GR involved.

The solution requires a mass distribution of an isothermal sphere, (enveloping our galaxy, in a uniform mass distribution). Any solution not conforming to the latter distribution will suffer Kepler decline. (Navarro Frank White distribution being the mainstream solution) NFW profile for short

This however has nothing to do with Hubble constant and universe expansion, nor universe creation. So quite frankly is off topic to this thread

Edited September 23, 2017 by Mordred

[Strange]

7 hours ago, beecee said:

 

No. The difference between 2 stellar masses would be too small. We are talking about an evolution of the continuum, not particles moving through space. All particles, including gas particles. sharing a rate of time are evolved forward at the same rate and so have the same velocity. 

 

But the effect we observe is LARGE therefore effect that is too small to measure is irrelevant. 

So again this falsifies your model. 

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

I find it sad that a forum such as this has so many mean spirited commenters. If I looked at a thread and it seemed nonsense to me, I would just ignore it. I would see no merit in meanness. If I saw a thread I thought had merit, I would try to contribute to it.

 

The trouble is you are  mixing nonsense with science. If you posted your religious nonsense in thread of its own I would ignore it. But if you pretend it has some scientific relevance it then I will have no hesitation in ridiculing it. This is not mean spirited. 

[beecee]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

But the effect we observe is LARGE therefore effect that is too small to measure is irrelevant. 

So again this falsifies your model. 

The trouble is you are  mixing nonsense with science. If you posted your religious nonsense in thread of its own I would ignore it. But if you pretend it has some scientific relevance it then I will have no hesitation in ridiculing it. This is not mean spirited. 

Hi Strange...the first quote you have attributed to me, obviously an error as it was not mine. 

[Strange]

24 minutes ago, beecee said:

Hi Strange...the first quote you have attributed to me, obviously an error as it was not mine. 

That's odd. I'm pretty sure I just hit the quote button. Unfortunately, it is too late for me to edit it now. Sorry about that.

[captcass]

Putting sensitivities aside, the spiritual aspect is not necessary to understand the other concepts and can be ignored, (though you guys are really missing out on the true beauty of the creation). I am only speaking about how we perceive the evolution of events re DM and how time dilation gives us the Hubble shift perception.

The isothermal sphere is another adaptation device attempting to incorporate DM. The galactic dilation gradients are not spherical, though they try to make it so with the isothermal sphere. Dilation gradients are spherical in stellar systems, flattened in spiral galaxies. It is unreasonable to expect GR to return similar results for two different shapes of gradients. In a deepening gradient, objects have higher velocities the deeper they are in the gradient (the slower their relative rate of time). If there were two Earths in our orbit, or two Mercury's in its orbit, they would have the same velocities. Likewise, in a galaxy, stellar systems occupying the same relative position in the gradient (having the same relative rate of time) will have the same velocity.

[Strange]

17 hours ago, captcass said:

No. The difference between 2 stellar masses would be too small. We are talking about an evolution of the continuum, not particles moving through space. All particles, including gas particles. sharing a rate of time are evolved forward at the same rate and so have the same velocity. 

Please explain this.

The effect we observe is LARGE therefore an effect that is too small to measure is irrelevant. 

If your model cannot predict the observed rotation curves then it is not useful.

[captcass]

Sorry, it is not too small to measure. The difference would be too small to measure considering the other current uncertainties noted. We couldn't be sure of what we were seeing, so the results would be meaningless. We would need to isolate 2 stellar systems and have certainty re the angle of perception and the other factors creating possible errors.

The effect we would be looking for is the difference in velocity between the Earth as it is and an Earth with a slightly larger mass in the same orbit. The larger mass Earth would have to have a higher velocity to avoid falling in towards the Sun. I am saying the higher velocity would be due to a slightly deeper gradient in the more massive Earth. 

Edited September 23, 2017 by captcass

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, captcass said:

Sorry, it is not too small to measure. The difference would be too small to measure considering the other current uncertainties noted.

The difference of what from what?

The effect that dark matter (whether matter or modified gravity) is required to explain is a large effect.

Quote

The effect we would be looking for is the difference in velocity between the Earth as it is and an Earth with a slightly larger mass in the same orbit. 

Why?

What you should be looking for is an effect that is purely dependent on the distance from the centre of the galaxy. That is the observation that needs to be explained. 

You seem to be inventing another problem (that hasn't been observed and, according to you, can't be observed). I assume this is because you don't have an explanation for the observed rotation curves?

[captcass]

Sorry, I guess I am not getting the concept across. I am saying the rotational velocities in galaxies are generally the same, and do not increase with proximity to the center as in a stellar system, because they are being evolved forward at the same rate of time, unlike planets in a stellar system, which all exist within their own relative rate of time.

Each mass has it's own gravity well, dilation gradient, so 2 bodies in the same orbit that have slightly different masses will have slightly different velocities, the more massive body having a higher velocity. 

I don't think we have galactic data that precise yet that can even determine that. Viewing angle, luminosity, dust content, galactic trajectory, etc., all contribute too many uncertainties.

You would admit, though, that 2 Earths of different mass would have to have 2 different velocities?

Off to work.....

[Mordred]

Galaxy rotation rates do not change due to radius, that is a Kepler decline.

The rates are uniform hence the required isothermal profile of NFW.

[Strange]

54 minutes ago, captcass said:

Sorry, I guess I am not getting the concept across. I am saying the rotational velocities in galaxies are generally the same, and do not increase with proximity to the center as in a stellar system, because they are being evolved forward at the same rate of time, unlike planets in a stellar system, which all exist within their own relative rate of time.

And can you show that this reproduces the observed rotation curves? 

I am assuming, from your evasiveness, that you cannot?

Quote

Each mass has it's own gravity well, dilation gradient, so 2 bodies in the same orbit that have slightly different masses will have slightly different velocities, the more massive body having a higher velocity. 

We use Newtonian gravity to calculate the orbits of planets, moons, asteroids, comets, artificial satellites, dust, molecules and atoms. No departure from the predicted orbits has been observed (apart from cases where it has indicated the presence of some unknown mass such as Uranus or dark matter).

Quote

I don't think we have galactic data that precise yet that can even determine that. Viewing angle, luminosity, dust content, galactic trajectory, etc., all contribute too many uncertainties.

It is becoming increasingly clear that what you think has little basis and can be disregarded.

Quote

You would admit, though, that 2 Earths of different mass would have to have 2 different velocities?

Apparently not.

[captcass]

The "Kepler decline" is just how we describe what we see. It is not "why" we see what we see. Newton and GR are supposed to be the why. Now not Newton, really, but GR. Well, not GR exactly.......

In terms of time, the stellar systems all evolve forward at the same rate of time, so they have the same apparent velocity. Two bodies of the same mass in the same orbit in a stellar system occupy the same rate of time level (plane, if you like), so evolve forward at the same rate. It is the shortest path in time. It's geodesic. This is why they have the same velocity. In the flattened disk of the galaxy, the objects also share the same rate of time, the same plane in time, and so have the same forward velocity. Velocity equates to relative speed of evolution in time. As all particles exist in gravitational fields (dilation gradients) they are undergoing constant relative acceleration in spacetiime, i.e., apparent acceleration through space and acceleration in the rate of time. Thus older frames have slower time and the Hubble shift, as stated elsewhere. 

It is the particle's position in the time dilation gradient, the gravity field, that determines its relative velocity.

I can see this is going to be a cross post. Sorry 'bout that.

[Strange]

Still not seeing any calculations of rotation curves ...