Galactic Dark Matter

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Contemplation, Feb 19, 2023.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Contemplation Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    173
    The integral of a light square would be the distance light can travel over the entire range of speeds from zero to the speed of light. That would have to be the means to be able to convert the time dilation equations into a square that is the furthest distance light could travel in that area.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,237
    Did you notice that I asked you what a light cube is?

    Why did you not answer my question and explain to me what a light cube is?

    Are you aware that we can't have a meaningful conversation about light cubes until we reach a mutual understanding of what it is we're discussing?
    What works?
    What are you trying to take the square root of?

    Why is this especially a problem for relativity in Minkowski Spacetime?

    Please explain.
    You mean the hypotenuse of a face, I assume. Okay.
    Yes.
    What does it apply to?

    What's a light cube?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,237
    What's a light square?
    ---

    Look, we can't move on until you answer the basic questions I have asked you.

    I suggest you work on those, for starters.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Contemplation Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    173

    v = velocity
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,237
    Thanks.

    What are your answers to the other 9 questions I asked you in that post?
     
  9. Contemplation Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    173
    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
     
  10. Contemplation Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    173
    I don’t know if you know how Einstein came up with the idea of a light sphere in his special theory of relativity, but it is basically the same as that. Instead of using a geometric sphere, I have used a cube as the geometric figure. How he derived the light sphere has been lost to time.
     
  11. Contemplation Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    173
    The main reason for doing this is because light triangles form cubes, not spheres.
     
  12. Contemplation Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    173
    This actually assumes an open system with no curvature where all the angles of a right triangle adds up to 180 degrees.
     
  13. Contemplation Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    173
    A light cube would have side lengths of vt + ct’. This is the distance an observer at rest would measure an object traveling at a constant relative speed. The total area this would cover would be;

    integral_0^(c (speed of light)) f(t(v)) dt(v) = c^3 t'(v)^3 + 3 c^2 v t(v) t'(v)^2 + 3 c v^2 t(v)^2 t'(v) + v^3 t(v)^3

    I believe this should be equal to ( c t’ )^3

    That is basically just multiplying the distance light traveled by itself three times. The reason I expect this result is because that is what Wolfram ended up getting with a light square.

    When you take the integral of all the speeds from zero to the speed of light you are actually finding the total area of a light square. It just so happened to turn out to return the expected value for the distance light would travel given c t’.
     
  14. Contemplation Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    173
    Yes, it doesn’t agree with any of the equations developed by Lorentz. The reason for this is that it is actually derived differently by not assuming the frequency of the clock. Then it doesn’t require the inverse to be taken to get an approximate answer.

    It only considers the distance a ray of light is shot forward from an object traveling at a relative speed and the geometric formations that naturally arise from that. Then time is actually the number of ticks on a clock to measure the distance the light ray or an object in relative motion traveled.

    You cannot mix and match equations derived from this other method with the ones I posted. It will never work out correctly. The proper time is the unit of measurement verified to match experiment. This is the same as the dilated time t’ I used in the equations.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,237
    This doesn't tell me what a light square is.
    What is a light sphere?
    What's the physical relevance of a light cube?
    Has it?

    What did he derive about it?
    What assumes that?
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,237
    What a pity.

    How can an equation be Lorentz invariant?
    Which clock?
    What inverse? What are you talking about?
    What geometric formations are you referring to? How do geometric formations arise from shooting light forward? What are you talking about?
    Why can't you mix and match them? Why won't it work out?
    Does that mean you're using the term "proper time" to mean something different from what it usually means in the theory of relativity? Isn't that confusing?
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,237
    Are you going to answer the many questions I have asked you in previous posts, Contemplation?

    Are you going to start from the start and explain what you're talking about?

    If not, what do you hope to gain from this conversation?
     
  18. Contemplation Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    173
    Take for instance the equation on time dilation I posted.

    t’ = ( t/c ) * sqrt( c^2 - v^2 )

    You can simply factor out c^2 out of the radical and take the square root of c so that it cancels with the speed of light in the denominator.

    This produces the equation;

    t’ = t sqrt( 1 - v^2 / c^2 )

    This is the equation of the proper time equation, so it is proper time invariant and not Lorentz Invariant, meaning that it doesn’t conflict with the proper time, but it does conflict with the Lorentz Factor. The reason for this is that the Lorentz Factor is the reciprocal, from it being in the denominator. The proper time has no denominator in it other than the speed of light under the square root.

    This is a long forgotten mystery of dealing with this in science. Everyone use to wonder where the number one came from and was afraid to work with it, but it just comes from factoring out the speed of light from the radical.

    Since it is proper time invariant, there is no need to take the inverse of the final answer to get the number of ticks on a clock. This is the same equation published in Einsteins 1905 paper on the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. This paper also gave an example of a light sphere. It was assumed that light only traveled in a spherical direction from the point of origin of an object traveling at a relative speed comparable to the speed of light.
     
  19. Contemplation Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    173
    I stumbled upon the proper time invariant equation while using the identities I posted;

    vt = c * sqrt( t^2 - t’^2 )

    Then it suddenly occurred to me that I discovered the equation mentioned in Sean Carrols book, The particle at the End of the Universe.

    I had post about it. It most likely won’t work out in the situation mentioned in the book, but it would be interesting to find out what it says about the work on black holes they mentioned. It would most likely have to be redefined in an accelerating frame of reference. It could take on different forms from the spacetime curvature near a black hole.

    That was what the head of theoretical physics asked for, an equation that only deals with dilated time which converts into distance. It would be an unexpected result for it to actually work in that field.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,237
    Contemplation:

    Are we done with all that other stuff about black holes, dark matter etc., then? Are we just talking about your new relativity theory? Okay.
    Okay.
    Please explain to me what the Lorentz factor is and why that equation conflicts with it.
    Please define the Lorentz factor for me. Is it really in conflict with the equation above?
    ?? Proper time isn't an equation. Is it?
    Is it? Have you got a link to where I can learn more about this long forgotten mystery?

    How do you know about this forgotten mystery? Did somebody remember it and tell you about it?
    Who's "everyone"?

    What number are you talking about?

    Why was everyone afraid? What were they fearful of?

    Now that you've shown that the solution is a simple factoring out of the speed of light, does that mean everyone no longer needs to be afraid of this? Or is there still something to worry about?
    What does "proper time invariant" mean?
    Was Einstein afraid of the equation, too?
    What's a light sphere? (And why didn't you tell me the first couple of times I asked?)
    Was that a problem? What was the problem, exactly? Was it solved? Have you solved it, perhaps?
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,237
    That equation involves t and t'. It doesn't seem to be "time invariant" to me.

    What do you mean by "proper time invariant equation"? Am I not parsing your words correctly, perhaps? Or is the problem at your end?
    Is that the equation here, or a different one?

    What does the equation tell us?
    Are you aware that your readers might not have access to the book you mentioned? Are you aware that the book probably talks about many different "situations", and you haven't clearly specified any of them?

    How do you expect people to know what you're talking about, if you start in the middle, rather than at the start?

    Which head of theoretical physics? What are you talking about?
    Which field? What are you talking about?
     
  22. Contemplation Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    173
    I see why physicists prefer to work alone now. I cannot seriously begin to even fathom how you are so completely dumbstruck by all of this. How do I even begin to take you seriously?

    All I see is every sentence followed by a dumb question.
     
  23. Contemplation Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    173
    Since this has been promoted to pseudoscience instead of free thoughts, I would pseudo that dark matter will eventually take over as the dominant force in the universe. The Andromeda Galaxy is the closest neighbor and will collide with the Milky Way. The amount of dark energy will eventually diminish from matter and energy being spewed into the galaxies. The orbits of the supermassive black holes will increase over time, shrinking the event horizon allowing cosmic jet streams to create more spiral arms. We will not be converted into Boltzmann Brains after this collision, because we already would have if that was to be the case. It will then create a new super galaxy which will then continue to jump through time, creating a new universe that has more massive galaxies in it. When scientists observe the increased acceleration of the universe, they are actually only measuring what it use to be previously when the acceleration first started.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page