# Galactic Dark Matter

Status
Not open for further replies.
What would that follow from? You haven't explained why this represents any sort of time dilation equation, yet.

"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?

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?

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.

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?

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

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

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?

What's a light square?

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?

What is doing the insisting?

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.

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

I actually rediscovered this fact from trying to solve for different sides of a light cube.
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?
It actually works for any type of cube.
What works?
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.
What are you trying to take the square root of?

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

If you have any cube, the hypotenuse of a side is the square root of two times the side length.
You mean the hypotenuse of a face, I assume. Okay.
Also, the distance from one opposite corner to another is the square root of three times the length of its side.
Yes.
This rule still applies. That is what I was stating.
What does it apply to?

What's a light cube?

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.
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.

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?

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

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?

v = velocity

v = velocity
Thanks.

What are your answers to the other 9 questions I asked you in that post?

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.
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

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.

The main reason for doing this is because light triangles form cubes, not spheres.

This actually assumes an open system with no curvature where all the angles of a right triangle adds up to 180 degrees.

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’.

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

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
This doesn't tell me what a light square is.
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.
What is a light sphere?
Instead of using a geometric sphere, I have used a cube as the geometric figure.
What's the physical relevance of a light cube?
How he derived the light sphere has been lost to time.
Has it?

What did he derive about it?
This actually assumes an open system with no curvature where all the angles of a right triangle adds up to 180 degrees.
What assumes that?

Yes, it doesn’t agree with any of the equations developed by Lorentz.
What a pity.

How can an equation be Lorentz invariant?
The reason for this is that it is actually derived differently by not assuming the frequency of the clock.
Which clock?
Then it doesn’t require the inverse to be taken to get an approximate answer.
What inverse? What are you talking about?
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.
What geometric formations are you referring to? How do geometric formations arise from shooting light forward? What are you talking about?
You cannot mix and match equations derived from this other method with the ones I posted. It will never work out correctly.
Why can't you mix and match them? Why won't it work out?
The proper time is the unit of measurement verified to match experiment.
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?

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?

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?
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.

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.

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.
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 )
Okay.
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.
Please explain to me what the Lorentz factor is and why that equation conflicts with it.
The reason for this is that the Lorentz Factor is the reciprocal, from it being in the denominator.
Please define the Lorentz factor for me. Is it really in conflict with the equation above?
The proper time has no denominator in it other than the speed of light under the square root.
?? Proper time isn't an equation. Is it?
This is a long forgotten mystery of dealing with this in science.

How do you know about this forgotten mystery? Did somebody remember it and tell you about it?
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.
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?
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.
What does "proper time invariant" mean?
This is the same equation published in Einsteins 1905 paper on the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.
Was Einstein afraid of the equation, too?
This paper also gave an example of a light sphere.
What's a light sphere? (And why didn't you tell me the first couple of times I asked?)
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.
Was that a problem? What was the problem, exactly? Was it solved? Have you solved it, perhaps?

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

vt = c * sqrt( t^2 - t’^2 )
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?
Then it suddenly occurred to me that I discovered the equation mentioned in Sean Carrols book, The particle at the End of the Universe.
Is that the equation here, or a different one?

What does the equation tell us?
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.
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?

That was what the head of theoretical physics asked for, an equation that only deals with dilated time which converts into distance.
Which head of theoretical physics? What are you talking about?
It would be an unexpected result for it to actually work in that field.
Which field? What are you talking about?

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?

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?
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.

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.

Status
Not open for further replies.