Galactic Dark Matter

[Contemplation]

This creates a light cube with a volume

V = ( vt + ct’ )^3

 

[Contemplation]

I wasn’t able to derive the dilated distance only in relation to time, because my attempts at it resulted in everything else in the equation canceling out everything else. There seems to be a deep relationship between the speed of light and the objects velocity.

d’ = sqrt(( t^2 - t’^2 ) ( c^2 - v^2 ))

In this case, the velocity is always less than the speed of light, so the amount of dilated distance an object is seen to travel is always greater than or equal to zero.

 

[Contemplation]

The distance a light ray is observed to travel if it is shot straight forward in the direction of motion of an object traveling at a constant velocity would be,

ct’ = t sqrt( c^2 - v^2 )

If you know the objects velocity then you can determine how far away the light ray will travel away in front of the object. This is the same distance the observer in motion measures the light ray to travel in a perpendicular direction using his own watch t’.

c > v

 

[Contemplation]

It is a self consistent theory and obeys the laws of cubes. The hypotenuse of a side of a light cube could be,

h = sqrt(2) ( vt + ct’ )

The slant length of the light cube would be,

s = sqrt(3) ( vt + ct’ )

The difference of squares of the speed of light and a relative velocity can take the form,

c^2 - v^2 = ( (ct’) / t )^2

It is actually the same as the distance a light ray would be observed to travel by an observer traveling at a constant relative speed divided by the amount of time which has passed quantity squared.

 

[Contemplation]

A common identity which can be used in Minkowski Spacetime which is self consistent with the proper time can be the distance light is seen to travel from rest.

ct = sqrt( v^2 t^2 + c^2 t’^2 )

In the same form, the distance light travels observed by an object in constant motion is,

ct’ = sqrt( c^2 t^2 - v^2 t^2 )

The distance an object is observed to travel is given by,

vt = sqrt( c^2 t^2 - c^2 t’^2 )

 

[Contemplation]

If you ever wondered what form the time dilation equation would take if there was no Lorentz Factor it would follow to be,

t’ = ( t/c ) * sqrt( c^2 - v^2 )

I do not believe that this is Lorentz Invariant.

 

[Contemplation]

One problem I faced when working on this is figuring out what it would mean to take the integral of a light triangle to find the total area and how it would relate to the side lengths. At this point, the theory seemed to break down and it began to create false solutions.

I believe that it means that there is actually no such thing as hyperspace, and objects separated by a higher dimension actually end up a real distance away from us in real space.

If you apply the Holographic Principle to a supermassive black hole, all of the events which have and will happen are all saved on the surface of the black hole. Once a closed time loop occurs which alters the eigenstates of the system, it creates a duplicate copy of that system away from there in real three dimensional space.

 

[Contemplation]

For example, you could find the area of a light square as an object traveled from zero to the speed of light and get c^2 t’^2 by inputting

integral_0^(c (speed of light)) f(t(v)) dt(v) = (v t(v) + c t'(v))^2

into Wolfram Alpha

c^2 t'(v)^2 = integral_0^(c (speed of light)) f(t(v)) dt(v) - 2 c v t(v) t'(v) - v^2 t(v)^2

If you use this as the total area of the light squares, it no longer works out. I am not sure why it insists that everything is a function of velocity. The program seems to develop a mind of its own when dealing with relativistic equations. I am not sure what I am doing wrong. I was previously referred to use this program to do heavy calculations on this website.

 

[Contemplation]

It could just mean that there is a universal speed limit and the maximum amount of distance an object can travel is the distance light travels. It still seems peculiar that this value cannot be substituted after finding the integral. Light is the only object that travels the speed of light, then an object obtaining the speed of light would then have to be light.

Even though the area of a light square is c^2 t’^2, you cannot say that is then equal to the distance an object would shoot a ray of light squared.

c^2 t’^2 =/= ( vt + ct’)^2

This seems to then create erroneous solutions.

 

[James R]

Contemplation:

You ought to decide what you want to talk about in this thread. You started off on dark matter, but now you seem to be trying to develop an "alternative" theory of relativity. Those ought to be two separate topics. Try to concentrate on discussing one thing at a time. Otherwise, you risk introducing new problems into something that is already problematic.

What if the reason galactic dark matter holds the Milky Way together is because the Milky Way is the universe?

The Milky Way is one galaxy. The universe is the set of all galaxies. Clearly, the Milky Way is not the universe. It's like suggesting that maybe a jelly bean is the bag of jelly beans. It makes no sense.

The universe is just rotating around a singularity that is a supermassive black hole.

No. It isn't.

This supermassive black hole is jumping backwards in time to create more supermassive black holes.

You just made that up, didn't you?

Then the Schwazrtchild Radius decreases and the event horizon moves to have a smaller radius, ejecting matter and energy to form spiral galaxies.

What made you think that an event horizon can eject matter? What made you think that ejected matter could form spiral galaxies?

How do you think it is not like that? In what ways? What would prevent it from being like that?

It is not up to us to prove your wild ideas wrong. It's up to you to find some reasons why anybody might be convinced that they are right. So far, you've given us nothing.

There is actually more gravity than there is supposed to be holding the galaxy together called dark matter.

The dark matter causes the gravity.

Then there is a web of dark matter holding all the galaxies together.

In part, I suppose.

This web could just be the connections between the galaxies through there supermassive black holes.

What makes you think that things are connected through black holes?

This connection through time makes them move away from us with dark energy.

What evidence do you have that anything is connected "through time"? What does that even mean?

The matter and energy inside of them could be what is pushing them apart.

Please outline the mechanism you are envisaging and the reasons why this would happen.

I didn’t say that dark matter is holding the galaxy together. It would be more like a pseudo-force from it being a closed system.

What do you mean by a "pseudo-force"? Why do closed systems have pseudo-forces? Can you give an example or two, to show what you mean?

The motions of the stars of the galaxy actually more closely resemble an object being spun around that is connected mechanically with itself.

More closely, compared to what? What are you talking about?

Pretend that the only galaxy is the Milky Way.

Okay.

How would any observer know if the galaxy was actually rotating?

If it wasn't, it would collapse under its own gravity. (Or are we also pretending there's no gravity?)

Why would it have a centrifugal force if that was all of spacetime spinning around?

You haven't explained why you think galaxies have a centrifugal force in the first place. What are you talking about?

The physics of the Milky Way galaxy could be more like it is operating like a water sprinkler. If everything is shot outwards from the center, it jumps gives the illusion of the water rotating around in circles. The water actually doesn’t orbit the sprinkler, so there would be no need for dark matter to keep it in orbit. The matter was shot out of a black hole, instead of collecting around in orbit.

What makes you think matter can be shot out of a black hole? Has that ever been observed?

The amount of curvature of spacetime at the center of a black hole could be infinite. This would create an Einstein-Rosen Bridge to another location in the universe.

Please explain why it would do that.

The dark matter map could simply be showing these connections.

Do you have an actual theory that allows us to meaningfully compare your idea to what is seen? Or is this just a guess?

It would be similar to a wormhole but with a closed singularity.

What's a closed singularity? What's an open singularity? Can we observe either of those things?

Everything past the event horizon is time reversed from the gravitational forces making the escape velocity faster than light, so then we would observe the other end of the black hole to have always previously existed.

What makes you think that everything past the event horizon is time reversed? Got a reference for that?

 

[James R]

You really should know this by now for as long as you have been trolling people here in these forums. The theory of cosmic jets was developed by Stephen Hawking, whom was hailed as one of the greatest theoretical physicists of modern times. He became famous from writing about this in his book, A Brief History of Time.

Are you claiming that the galaxies are formed by cosmic jets? Got a reference for that?

The problem with his theory is that it predicts that black holes could gain infinite energy past the event horizon.

Which theory? Hawking's theory of cosmic jets?

Have you got a link to where I can find out more about Hawking's theory of cosmic jets?

He was able to work around this problem by using different methods to use equations that relate to black holes using different metric units by incorporating quantum mechanics into the theory.

Oh, good. Have you got a link to a relevant paper or article that explains the work-around? I'd like to see the maths that predicts the infinite energy past the event horizon and which shows the work-around solution to the problem. I assume you've already read the paper?

More recent approaches using the Holographic Principle use only measurements of their proper time.

This is the first time you've mentioned a Holographic Principle. What are you talking about?

They were unable to solve for distances to describe the situation by completely removing distances from the equations.

How does one solve for a distance by removing distance? I don't understand.

I have derived an equation to determine the distances an object traveled at a constant velocity by solving for distance in an equivalent equation of the proper time in Minkowski Spacetime.

d = c sqrt( t^2 - t’^2 )

What are the terms in this equation? I assume "d" is the "distances an object traveled at a constant velocity". What are t and t'? Is c the speed of light?

What situation(s) does this equation apply to, specifically?

In Minkowski Spacetime, if you picked up a black box or read a transmitter from another ship, you could determine the relative distance an object traveled by only measuring the difference of squares of their two clocks, where t’ is the proper time.

Are you saying that t and t' are times measured on two clocks?

Please outline the specific scenario your equation applies to. You seem to have started in the middle of some kind of theoretical explanation, rather than at the start.

What kind of problem do you think this solves?

The proper time is always less than time, so the difference of squares of these two values is always greater than or equal to zero. When the difference of squares of an object’s dilated time is zero, it has traveled no distance.

I don't understand. You seem to be saying that an object (which object?) has a proper time and a dilated time, and that when those two times are equal the object hasn't travelled anywhere. Can you please explain what you mean? Give a particular scenario (with the maths), please.

 

[James R]

No, no, no, you have it all wrong. The proper time is always less than an observer at rest.

That sentence doesn't scan. How can a time be less than an observer? What do you mean?

They measure fewer ticks on the clock.

Who is "they"? What scenario are you talking about?

It is set up so that t’ is the shorter side of the light triangle, as an observer in constant motion would measure a light beam to travel a shorter distance, straight up and down.

This is the first time you've mentioned light beams. What are you talking about?

The observer at rest measures a light ray to travel a longer distance at a diagonal.

At a diagonal to what? Which light ray are you talking about? What's the scenario?

They use their clock to make this determination of how far the light ray traveled.

?? They use a clock to determine distance? How?

 

[James R]

The standardized units work in the equation.

km = (km/s) * sqrt( s^2 - s’^2 )

The equation is dimensionally correct, yes.

This is the distance that an observer at rest would measure the ship to travel using their own clock.

Which ship? This is the first time you've mentioned a ship.

Distance is nothing more than the difference of squares of an object’s dilated time, the speed of light number of times.

??

I was able to derive this formula from discovering an alternate equation for the Pythagorean Theorem.

( a + b )^2 = c^2 + 2ab

a, b, and c are the three sides of a right triangle.

It's a mathematical identity that $$(a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2 + 2ab$$.
If a and b are the short sides of a right-angled triangle, and c is the hypotenuse, then $$c^2=a^2 + b^2$$.
In that case, your result is valid.

The distance a light ray travels sent to the front of the ship can be expressed as,
( vt + ct’ )^2 = ( ct )^2 + 2 ( vt ) ( ct’ )

What ship?
Where is the light ray sent from?
What are t, v, t'?
Is c the speed of light?

What scenario are you referring to? Why not start with that?

What has any of this got to do with dark matter, black holes, Einstein-Rosen bridges and all that stuff, from earlier in the thread?

 

[James R]

This creates a light cube with a volume

V = ( vt + ct’ )^3

What is a light cube?
What creates a light cube? (This doesn't seem to follow from anything you wrote previously.)

It is a self consistent theory and obeys the laws of cubes.

What are the laws of cubes?

The hypotenuse of a side of a light cube could be,

h = sqrt(2) ( vt + ct’ )

This can wait until we learn what a light cube is, I think.

 

[Contemplation]

Contemplation:

You ought to decide what you want to talk about in this thread. You started off on dark matter, but now you seem to be trying to develop an "alternative" theory of relativity. Those ought to be two separate topics. Try to concentrate on discussing one thing at a time. Otherwise, you risk introducing new problems into something that is already problematic.

The Milky Way is one galaxy. The universe is the set of all galaxies. Clearly, the Milky Way is not the universe. It's like suggesting that maybe a jelly bean is the bag of jelly beans. It makes no sense.

No. It isn't.

You just made that up, didn't you?

What made you think that an event horizon can eject matter? What made you think that ejected matter could form spiral galaxies?

It is not up to us to prove your wild ideas wrong. It's up to you to find some reasons why anybody might be convinced that they are right. So far, you've given us nothing.

The dark matter causes the gravity.

In part, I suppose.

What makes you think that things are connected through black holes?

What evidence do you have that anything is connected "through time"? What does that even mean?

Please outline the mechanism you are envisaging and the reasons why this would happen.

What do you mean by a "pseudo-force"? Why do closed systems have pseudo-forces? Can you give an example or two, to show what you mean?

More closely, compared to what? What are you talking about?

Okay.

If it wasn't, it would collapse under its own gravity. (Or are we also pretending there's no gravity?)

You haven't explained why you think galaxies have a centrifugal force in the first place. What are you talking about?

What makes you think matter can be shot out of a black hole? Has that ever been observed?

Please explain why it would do that.

Do you have an actual theory that allows us to meaningfully compare your idea to what is seen? Or is this just a guess?

What's a closed singularity? What's an open singularity? Can we observe either of those things?

What makes you think that everything past the event horizon is time reversed? Got a reference for that?

Those are a lot of questions. I think that is more than I can answer all at once. When I read about the most recent work on black holes, being able to solve for distances from only knowing the amount of time that passed by was one of the leading problems to attempt to accurately describe the situation. That is my solution to the problem. I don’t expect you guys to solve it. I know they frequent these forums, so I am dropping the information here for them to possibly find it. I could send it to them directly, but they complain a lot about people doing that. I am stuck on further developing the problem.

The problem is that they mostly only use quantum mechanics to solve for whatever happens at a black hole. That doesn’t include the time dilation equations. It makes it difficult for them to know what is actually taking place with real distances.

The light clock example has never been accurately solved in Minkowski Spacetime, so I am working on that solution to give the proper time.

One could say that the amount of dilated time an outside observer experiences on their own watch would be t’ or tau. I prefer to use t’, since tau is too cool and popular being used in other areas of science.

This is read as time prime or the amount of time a relativistic observer measures the passage of time.

 

[James R]

If you ever wondered what form the time dilation equation would take if there was no Lorentz Factor it would follow to be,

t’ = ( t/c ) * sqrt( c^2 - v^2 )

What would that follow from? You haven't explained why this represents any sort of time dilation equation, yet.

I do not believe that this is Lorentz Invariant.

"This" what? What are you referring to?

You seem to be saying the equation isn't Lorentz invariant, but that would make no sense. So what are you talking about?

One problem I faced when working on this is figuring out what it would mean to take the integral of a light triangle to find the total area and how it would relate to the side lengths.

This is your first introduction of the idea of a "light triangle". What are you talking about?
Also, I see that you later introduce the idea of a "light square" as well. What's that?

At this point, the theory seemed to break down and it began to create false solutions.

What theory?

You seem to have started in the middle of something. Why not start at the start? Very little of this means anything to me, for instance.

I believe that it means that there is actually no such thing as hyperspace, and objects separated by a higher dimension actually end up a real distance away from us in real space.

What is hyperspace? This is the first time you've mentioned it. Why did you think there should be a hyperspace in the first place? What's real space?

If you apply the Holographic Principle to a supermassive black hole, all of the events which have and will happen are all saved on the surface of the black hole.

We're back to black holes again, now? Okay, I guess.

How are the events saved? What does that even mean?

Once a closed time loop occurs which alters the eigenstates of the system, it creates a duplicate copy of that system away from there in real three dimensional space.

This is the first mention of closed time loops and eigenstates. I have no idea what "system" you're talking about, either.

What are you talking about?

For example, you could find the area of a light square as an object traveled from zero to the speed of light and get c^2 t’^2 by inputting

integral_0^(c (speed of light)) f(t(v)) dt(v) = (v t(v) + c t'(v))^2

into Wolfram Alpha

What's a light square?

If you use this as the total area of the light squares, it no longer works out.

What did it work out for in the first place? You seem to have started in the middle of something, again. Start at the beginning.

What are you trying to do? What problem are you trying to solve with all this?

I am not sure why it insists that everything is a function of velocity.

What is doing the insisting?

The program seems to develop a mind of its own when dealing with relativistic equations. I am not sure what I am doing wrong. I was previously referred to use this program to do heavy calculations on this website.

Are you talking about Wolfram Alpha?

How about we start from the start? Tell us the scenario you're trying to work out the maths for. Then explain why you're trying to get Wolfram Alpha to do that particular integration.

It could just mean that there is a universal speed limit and the maximum amount of distance an object can travel is the distance light travels.

What could mean that? Wolfram Alpha giving you an error message on your integral? Why could it mean that?

 

[Contemplation]

The equation is dimensionally correct, yes.

Which ship? This is the first time you've mentioned a ship.

??

It's a mathematical identity that $$(a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2 + 2ab$$.
If a and b are the short sides of a right-angled triangle, and c is the hypotenuse, then $$c^2=a^2 + b^2$$.
In that case, your result is valid.

What ship?
Where is the light ray sent from?
What are t, v, t'?
Is c the speed of light?

What scenario are you referring to? Why not start with that?

What has any of this got to do with dark matter, black holes, Einstein-Rosen bridges and all that stuff, from earlier in the thread?

I am saying that the light clock example can be set up differently. Distance equals velocity times time.

d = v t

The distance a ray of light would travel would be,

d = c t

This is because c is the speed of light or lights constant velocity.

The total distance an object that sends a ray of light into its forward direction of motion would be

vt + ct’

 

[James R]

Contemplation:

Those are a lot of questions.

Necessary because there are so many gaps in what you wrote. I have to establish what you're talking about before we can have any meaningful conversation about it.

When I read about the most recent work on black holes, being able to solve for distances from only knowing the amount of time that passed by was one of the leading problems to attempt to accurately describe the situation. That is my solution to the problem.

What distances are you talking about? Something do with with black holes and distance is all I'm getting. But what?

You say this is "one of the leading problems"? For whom? You, or somebody else? What's the problem, exactly? Can you explain what the problem arises and how it arises? My problem, here and now, is there's very little context to your posts.

I don’t expect you guys to solve it. I know they frequent these forums, so I am dropping the information here for them to possibly find it. I could send it to them directly, but they complain a lot about people doing that. I am stuck on further developing the problem.

Who is "they"? Who are you talking about?

Would "they" be reading this thread, then? Are "they" reticent about replying to it, despite frequenting this forum? Why would that be?

To "they" - if you're reading this: can you clarify what Contemplation is talking about? Because he's doing a terrible job of expressing what the problem is, so far. Maybe you can all do better.

The problem is that they mostly only use quantum mechanics to solve for whatever happens at a black hole.

Let's here from "they", I say.

That doesn’t include the time dilation equations.

Quantum mechanics doesn't include time dilation equations? Or just they's quantum mechanics? Why not?

It makes it difficult for them to know what is actually taking place with real distances.

What's a real distance? Are there unreal distances, too?

The light clock example has never been accurately solved in Minkowski Spacetime, so I am working on that solution to give the proper time.

What light clock example? Got a link that outlines this unsolved problem with the light clock?

The proper time of what? What are you talking about?

One could say that the amount of dilated time an outside observer experiences on their own watch would be t’ or tau. I prefer to use t’, since tau is too cool and popular being used in other areas of science.

Why do you think the particular variable name or symbol is important?

This is read as time prime or the amount of time a relativistic observer measures the passage of time.

What do you mean by a "relativistic observer"? The passage of time of what?

 

[Contemplation]

What is a light cube?
What creates a light cube? (This doesn't seem to follow from anything you wrote previously.)

What are the laws of cubes?

This can wait until we learn what a light cube is, I think.

I actually rediscovered this fact from trying to solve for different sides of a light cube. It actually works for any type of cube. Another common question I have read about in trying to solve for relativity in Minkowski Spacetime is what does it actually mean to square or take the square root or what form would the equations actually take when that is achieved.

If you have any cube, the hypotenuse of a side is the square root of two times the side length. Also, the distance from one opposite corner to another is the square root of three times the length of its side. This rule still applies. That is what I was stating.

 

[James R]

I am saying that the light clock example can be set up differently.

Why not start with a description of your suggested setup, then? You appear to be jumping into the middle of something, rather than starting at the start.

Got a diagram or a description of your different setup, that I can take a look at?

Distance equals velocity times time.

d = v t

The distance a ray of light would travel would be,

d = c t

This is because c is the speed of light or lights constant velocity.

These are generic expressions that aren't limited to light clocks. Right?

The total distance an object that sends a ray of light into its forward direction of motion would be

vt + ct’

Where are you measuring this total distance from? Have you got a diagram you can show me, so I know what you're talking about?

Also, you just said that the speed of light is constant. Why would the distance light travels depend on v, in that case? (What's v, anyway?) Also, why are you using two different times in that expression: t and t'? What would the expression look like if you just used one time?

Also, whose time is t, and whose is t', in your different light clock scenario?

Just start by explaining what scenario you are considering, then we can work from there. Agreed?