# Solution to the Galaxy Rotation Problem, without Dark Matter

Something just crossed my mind that should be slightly interesting regarding density, mass and KilljoyKlown’s question about the Sun.

We have shown the following relationship below (previous quote) for the Time Dilation factor of three different regions of the cosmos. I wonder what our density is at the 5.27ly, and why, if the Sun is less dense, do we have a larger Time Dilation factor to account for. It seems the Time Dilation effect, though related to density and radius in relationship to our mass, why then would the Time Dilation be higher on the Sun’s surface, than on the higher density/radius of the Earth?

Is this more an effect of shear mass over and above radial density? Just a question. What is our density, if we called our radius 5.271 LY?

So, on Earth, the time lost is 0.0219 seconds less than a distant observer over a period of one year. In comparison, a clock on the surface of the sun will accumulate around 66.4 seconds less in a year. We have calculated a clock at 5.27 ly from the center of the Black Hole; will accumulate 351.123 seconds less per year.

Something just crossed my mind that should be slightly interesting regarding density, mass and KilljoyKlown’s question about the Sun.

We have shown the following relationship below (previous quote) for the Time Dilation factor of three different regions of the cosmos. I wonder what our density is at the 5.27ly, and why, if the Sun is less dense, do we have a larger Time Dilation factor to account for. It seems the Time Dilation effect, though related to density and radius in relationship to our mass, why then would the Time Dilation be higher on the Sun’s surface, than on the higher density/radius of the Earth?

Is this more an effect of shear mass over and above radial density? Just a question. What is our density, if we called our radius 5.271 LY?

Time Dilation is caused by relative position to a gravity source. The density of a gravity source has nothing to do with it. However more mass in a very dense object would allow you to get your clock closer to the gravity source which would cause a greater time dilation effect.

Density is mass divided by volume. If you know the radius you can work out the volume, and you know the mass of the BH. So it can be worked out. It must still be quite high compared to the sun.
Something just crossed my mind that should be slightly interesting regarding density, mass and KilljoyKlown’s question about the Sun.

We have shown the following relationship below (previous quote) for the Time Dilation factor of three different regions of the cosmos. I wonder what our density is at the 5.27ly, and why, if the Sun is less dense, do we have a larger Time Dilation factor to account for. It seems the Time Dilation effect, though related to density and radius in relationship to our mass, why then would the Time Dilation be higher on the Sun’s surface, than on the higher density/radius of the Earth?

Is this more an effect of shear mass over and above radial density? Just a question. What is our density, if we called our radius 5.271 LY?

Density is mass divided by volume. If you know the radius you can work out the volume, and you know the mass of the BH. So it can be worked out. It must still be quite high compared to the sun.
if there are two equal masses but one that has the greater density will have the highest GTD for the "r" from the surface to the center will be shorter.

Something just crossed my mind that should be slightly interesting regarding density, mass and KilljoyKlown’s question about the Sun.

We have shown the following relationship below (previous quote) for the Time Dilation factor of three different regions of the cosmos. I wonder what our density is at the 5.27ly, and why, if the Sun is less dense, do we have a larger Time Dilation factor to account for. It seems the Time Dilation effect, though related to density and radius in relationship to our mass, why then would the Time Dilation be higher on the Sun’s surface, than on the higher density/radius of the Earth?

All you have to do is look at the GTR equation. GTR is dependent on the ratio M/r The Sun has 333,000 time the mass of the Earth but only 109 times the radius.

Another way to look at it is that Mass is density times volume and volume increases by the cube of the radius. Ergo, if I had two bodies, one with twice the density of the other, the less dense object would only have to have a radius 1.414 times greater to have the same time dilation at its surface. The Earth is only 3.68 times more dense than the Sun. At that density ratio, the Sun would only have to have a radius 1.92 times that of the Earth to have the same surface time dilation.

All you have to do is look at the GTR equation. GTR is dependent on the ratio M/r The Sun has 333,000 time the mass of the Earth but only 109 times the radius.

Another way to look at it is that Mass is density times volume and volume increases by the cube of the radius. Ergo, if I had two bodies, one with twice the density of the other, the less dense object would only have to have a radius 1.414 times greater to have the same time dilation at its surface. The Earth is only 3.68 times more dense than the Sun. At that density ratio, the Sun would only have to have a radius 1.92 times that of the Earth to have the same surface time dilation.
Another post where Janus clearly shows his/her clear understanding of the situation. Only question I have is regarding the ratio of density of the Sun to the Earth? And once again you are correct
1,408 kg/m^3 for the Sun and the Earth 5,515 kg/m^3 means the ratio = 3.917 so that is close to your figure of 3.68.
I must have quoted an incorrect density for the Sun earlier in the thread. Sorry.

PS: found what I had said "Average density of Sun = 1,408 kg/m^3 way less than average density of the Earth which is roughly 5,515 kg/m^3"
We must be just using slightly different figures.

Last edited:
Another post where Janus clearly shows his/her clear understanding of the situation. Only question I have is regarding the ratio of density of the Sun to the Earth? And once again you are correct
1,408 kg/m^3 for the Sun and the Earth 5,515 kg/m^3 means the ratio = 3.917 so that is close to your figure of 3.68.
I must have quoted an incorrect density for the Sun earlier in the thread. Sorry.

PS: found what I had said "Average density of Sun = 1,408 kg/m^3 way less than average density of the Earth which is roughly 5,515 kg/m^3"
We must be just using slightly different figures.

It was a combination of using a slightly different value for the Sun's density(my source listed it as 1.4e3 kg.m^2). and a transposition on my part entering the Earth's density. I entered 5155 rather than 5515.

It was a combination of using a slightly different value for the Sun's density(my source listed it as 1.4e3 kg.m^2). and a transposition on my part entering the Earth's density. I entered 5155 rather than 5515.
Thanks.
It was my bad memory too, I had not appreciated the relatively low density for the Sun. I'll try and remember it as 4 times, "the Earth is 4 times as dense as the Sun".

@ Janus58 - Do you know the math of what happens to kinetic motion, energy and momentum when something massive moves from one timezone to the next?

I've never worked with GTD before. It takes me 90 mins to drive home at the end of the week and I think about driving through different zones of GTD and try and work out how fast I would be going and what would happen to the energy if the velocity changed.
I must admit I couldn't work it out in my head. On the forum I have tried to get someone else to come in help but no one did.
In the paper it seems to suggest that GTD will affect the observed velocity. Try and work this out before we look at the galaxy.

I've never worked with GTD before. It takes me 90 mins to drive home at the end of the week and I think about driving through different zones of GTD and try and work out how fast I would be going and what would happen to the energy if the velocity changed.
I must admit I couldn't work it out in my head. On the forum I have tried to get someone else to come in help but no one did.
In the paper it seems to suggest that GTD will affect the observed velocity. Try and work this out before we look at the galaxy.

This (the Wiki Quote below) is from another thread; the one about proper time frames. Here is the quote related to your question.
"In physics, the principle of relativity is the requirement that the equations describing the laws of physics have the same form in all admissible frames of reference. -" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity

I’m sorry that I used your example earlier to apply it also to our Galaxy observations, but here is what would happen to your 90 minute trip, if you unexpectedly entered a very large Gravitational field along your travels.

You are travelling along your path and you discover a black hole that showed up near your path that you must drive nearby to get to your house. As you enter the Time Dilated area very near the Black Hole you have no observable effect to experience. You have traveled at 100kph, throughout your trip as you get closer, nearby, and pass very close to this supermassive object, there is no difference in your understanding of motion, inertia, or any physical lab experience you can do along your path.

However… when you arrive at home, your wife and kids wonder where you have been all night? Depending on how close you were able to travel to the Black Hole, and the Calculated GTD effect, the people who are expecting you to arrive in 90 minutes, may have been waiting for an extra hour for you to arrive. Even if you called from the office when you left for home, and your wife and kids set a timer, their 90 minutes came and went, but no RobittyBob, until much later. Your 90 min. has just arrived on your slower clock, but they don’t believe you, and now you’re in trouble.

They will never get their hour of waiting back, and you will never get your lost hour back. You have travelled into the future by an extra hour, meaning you arrived in two and a half hours on their clock, and yet you have only have aged, and literally spent 90 minutes travelling home. It’s the twin paradox on a much tinier scale.

Furthermore, all the physics, math, clocks and gravity worked exactly as expected while you were making your trip, correct? (refer back to the Wiki quote) BUT what did it look like to your despondent family, who think you dropped off at the local watering hole. You actually went the usual rate of speed, at 100kmh. so you covered 150 km. BUT, they being the distant observer, not influenced by the Time Dilation in this example, have no choice but to measure your speed differently. They have no chicce but to deduce that you travelled 150km, in two hours and thirty minutes. So they say you have travelled 66.666kph for you whole trip, or you stopped along the way for a drink. One or the other.

I’ve been watching Steven Hawking’s Universe programs on the Science channel this evening, and it angers me on one account. The one program covers GTD like none I have ever seen on television, and it is fun, but confuses the issue. They cover many of the things we have discussed including the GPS satellite adjustments etc. They use an example of a train travelling very near the speed of light on a journey. The conclusion in the end is the same as we have shown with your story with your drive home, but here is where it is so wrong. It shows the people on the train, doing everything in slow motion while they are travelling, slowly drinking water and walking along as if in slow motion. This is why this seems confusing, but should not be. To the people on the train, everything is at the absolute normal pace (no energy shed, or lost within each frame) and is as the Wiki quote states, “the requirement that the equations describing the laws of physics have the same form in all admissible frames of reference. –“

The only way the people on the train would appear in slow motion, or balls bouncing slowly or water pouring slowed down, is if this were viewed from the other frame. If your wife, or kids, for instance, were to be speaking to you on a cell phone, you would hear them through the speaker as if they were sucking helium, and they would hear you as if you were huffing laughing gas, if you were near the Black Hole. Both observers though would be in their proper physical frames, and all physical laws would apply independently to each properly.

This is the function that must exist in the equivalence principle, in relativity. Since the speed of light cannot change, nor can the physics in each frame change, the only flexible fabric we have is the Time element in our equations, which only need to change as we view one another’s realities anyhow. That is the only required change.

Gravity may be permitted to change, but Time MUST change, for relative KTD and GTD, because the other parameters are not permitted to change. This will become increasingly clear as we explore the Black Holes I think. The only way Gravity can change is within its local frame as an artifact of energy transference, as you have begun to explore, but if true, it can only be measured, or calculated as if observed only within the local frame.

Last edited:
Когда и где милашка) ? Будем вместе изучать вращение нашей с тобой вселенной)))

Давайте устроим вечеринку в нашем виртуальном мире, тем более, что есть повод- такой замечательный день, как 8 Марта

When gravity acts, pressure will increase. The higher pressure allows entropy to decrease. For example, as gravity induced pressure goes up gases will condense, with the condensation of a gas to a liquid lowering the entropy. The solid iron core of the earth exists as a solid because of gravity induced pressures. It would have higher entropy and/or be a gas at that temperature in empty space. Because the entropy is low, we get various dynamics like rotation and magnetic effects to increase the entropy.

The net result is gravity, via pressure, lowers local entropy, within in a universe where entropy needs to increase. The result is the entropy will be expressed in others ways, such as with circulations. The power of the circulation tells us how much entropy potential gravity is generating and how much needs to be compensated to lower the entropy potential.

For example, hurricanes alway have a lot of rain. There will not be a hurricane on earth without water. Since entropy has to increase, and since a hurricane will result in extreme condensation, which lowers entropy, we need a very powerful way for entropy to increase. The vortex dynamics will be extreme and reflects the compensation.

The fastest spinning galaxies are condensing via gravity at the highest rates.

deleted

Last edited:
I really thinking if we have gravitational time dilation through the same equivalence principal there should be length contraction as well. It seemed to be emphasised on a YouTube that I've seen that time and length are essential to change together. (I'll have to go through History to find the URL but the subject was"simultaneity of relativity")
Had you thought that too Scott?

Last edited:
Can we have gravitational time dilation without length contraction?

I really thinking if we have gravitational time dilation through the same equivalence principal there should be length contraction as well. It seemed to be emphasised on a YouTube that I've seen that time and length are essential to change together. (I'll have to go through History to find the URL but the subject was"simultaneity of relativity")
Had you thought that too Scott?

I had ran it through my head, but the equivalent to length contraction, in SR (KTD), would be three dimensional contraction, and I have to say, it could actually be the mechanism explaining the phenomenon. I first came across this while writing up my first example about our cars orbiting the two planets. If you re-read that, if we contracted the geometry, it could help explain how exactly time is dilated, and follows the pressure model that has been explained above by Wellwisher. It’s worth thinking on for sure.

I had ran it through my head, but the equivalent to length contraction, in SR (KTD), would be three dimensional contraction, and I have to say, it could actually be the mechanism explaining the phenomenon. I first came across this while writing up my first example about our cars orbiting the two planets. If you re-read that, if we contracted the geometry, it could help explain how exactly time is dilated, and follows the pressure model that has been explained above by Wellwisher. It’s worth thinking on for sure.
Time dilation does not just affect time in a certain direction. That is rather weird to think in terms of a direction of time (for time seems to have only one direction) but length contraction only is an effect in the direction of travel.
So with GTD there is no real motion but only an equivalence to acceleration. In a strong gravity field there is a stronger acceleration due to gravity, so light in these regions is more bent than in lower gravity, so if a light clock works at right angles to gravity (across the lift) the light bends as it crosses the lift, when the lift is firmly on the ground. It only goes straight across in a free fall situation.
So I get the uncomfortable feeling the light in the arms of the interferometers (MM experiment) were taking curved paths or a paths longer than the distance (length) of the arms??? So I propose that the difference in distances is amount of length contraction in a region of GTD.
So is this Length contraction only in the side to side direction? For there is not normally length contraction at right angles to the motion!!!

So is the Equivalence principle not equivalent when it comes to the direction of length contraction? You sounded like you noticed this too when you said there "would be three dimensional contraction". Do you still think this is the case or just at orthogonal to the acceleration?
Do you think they measured an incorrect distance in the Pound-Rebka experiment? For I have not heard them discuss the length contraction that was occurring!

Time dilation does not just affect time in a certain direction. That is rather weird to think in terms of a direction of time (for time seems to have only one direction) but length contraction only is an effect in the direction of travel.
So with GTD there is no real motion but only an equivalence to acceleration. In a strong gravity field there is a stronger acceleration due to gravity, so light in these regions is more bent than in lower gravity, so if a light clock works at right angles to gravity (across the lift) the light bends as it crosses the lift, when the lift is firmly on the ground. It only goes straight across in a free fall situation.
So I get the uncomfortable feeling the light in the arms of the interferometers (MM experiment) were taking curved paths or a paths longer than the distance (length) of the arms??? So I propose that the difference in distances is the amount of length contraction in a region of GTD.
So is this Length contraction only in the side to side direction? For there is not normally length contraction at right angles to the motion!!!

So is the Equivalence principle not equivalent when it comes to the direction of length contraction? You sounded like you noticed this too when you said there "would be three dimensional contraction". Do you still think this is the case or just at orthogonal to the acceleration?
Do you think they measured an incorrect distance in the Pound-Rebka experiment? For I have not heard them discuss the length contraction that was occurring!
In a situation where you could be getting length contraction without motion, it teases your understanding.
I was worried that I haven't made myself clear but "I propose that the difference in distances is amount of length contraction in a region of GTD" explains it quite well. Light has to travel a longer distance to go across the lift. To account for that longer time over a distance it is explained as length contraction and time dilation. I must admit I'm struggling to see what would make the lift get narrower.

Last edited: