Alternate Theory of Gravity (split from "Puzzling Results From CERN")

DeathDart

Graduate Poster
DeathDart
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
1,251
If time can go faster, and light can go faster.

How old was the light that left 1987a ? Trick question, the same as the distance in light years since no matter how fast or slow time flows an observer on a light beam experiences the same amount of time which is equivalent to the distance.

This may produce a discrepancy in our time. If you knew based on our time when the beam of light left 1987a and when it was detected here on Earth, I have some confidence that it would be significantly less than the measured distance to 1987a. If the beam of light passed through regions of faster Time Space on its way here, it would arrive early based on our clocks.

Stellar Cartographers are putting a price on my head as we type.
 
ben m said:
Baloney. This was not an unusually large experiment, nor an unusually precise one. The reason OPERA's measurement is so *poor* is that neutrinos are hard to work with. They have an error bar of 5x10^-6 on their speed, in a field where anyone working with photons is getting 10^-9 routinely or 10^-11 in special cases. Any gravity-related photon anomaly would have been beyond trivial to detect.

It went deep into the earth? Only ten kilometers; humans have been to 4km below Earth, and 11km undersea, and boreholes have been to 12km underground.

It went a long distance? Baloney. We're timing photons back and forth to the Moon, and Cassini, and Pioneer 2, and so on (including the huge gravitational fields encountered along such flights, along which the GR time delay is easily seen) with the centimeter accuracy typical of all photon-timing experiments.
Click to expand...

It was a large experiment in the sense of how much solid rock it crossed. The space locally (not inside rock) is relativistic.
 
Why does "700km of rock at 10^-5 precision" tell you something that "1km of rock at 10^-9 precision" does not? Or 10m of rock at 10^-11 precision? Anyway, oceangoing optical fiber crosses thousands of kilometers of seafloor (and it includes deeply submerged clocks, repeaters, lasers, etc.) and has timing signals much more precise than OPERA's.
 
ctamblyn said:
Much of this depends on how much you claim that the gravitational field is reduced within dense matter.

Let's try this: if you tell me exactly how much the gravitational field is weakened in matter of given density, I can calculate what effect that will have on bubbles in mercury.
:D
Click to expand...

One: the calculation I made was based on theoretical Time Space.

Two: We are in relativistic Space Time, this calculation should not work.

Three: The Time Space calculation shows a gravitational field of 2.407E-2 m/s. THIS IS BOGUS DUH!

In relativistic Space Time that would always mean that time always has a value less than one.

How to switch to Times Space Calculations.

The Gravitationally Dependent Time GDT Equation for determining the flow of Time= 1+(SQRT(gt2/g)= Time Flow

gt2 = 6.674E-11 m^2 sec-1 The gravitational field strength where the flow of time (In Space) equals 2.

g=9.81ms^2 sec Earth surface gravitational field.

The time flow in a 9.81m^2 field is 1+SQRT(gt2/g)= 1.0000026=1+2.6E-6

The neutrinos were apparently going (v-c)/c = (2.37 ± 0.32 (stat.)(sys.)) ×10-5 faster than light.
1+2.37e-5 (c)

1+2.6E-5 GDT compares favourably to the 1+ 2.37E-5.measured at CERN.

The difference between Relativistic Space Time and GDT Time Space may be related to the geometry of the gravitational field. A gravitational field at a distance becomes a point source or relatively flat spatial geometry.

Inside a planet or mass the geometry of the gravitational field might be flat, so that Time Space does apply.


My previous calculation in this thread was in error. and I should have stopped after the first conversion. OK I am a BIG STUPID HEAD.
 
So the difference of 2.6E-5 and CERNS 2,37E-5 may have to do with the gravity profile that it was passing through, not being entirely flat. The non-gravitationally flat portions of its path reduced its speed in the CERN measurements.

Introducing mass along the neutrino path, or using long air gaps, might allow you to change the time interval slightly.

Interesting.
 

Sorry, DeathDart, you are alternating between:

a) Restating an explicitly-disproven non-GR equation for spacetime.

b) On the fly, making up utterly-science-free "excuses" for rejecting the past 100 years of high-precision GR experiments that didn't see an OPERA-sized anomaly ... despite your not knowing what sort of experiment you're supposed to be rejecting.

c) Unintelligible gibberish.
 
ben m said:
Sorry, DeathDart, you are alternating between:


c) Unintelligible gibberish.
Click to expand...

Actually I was off by an order of magnitude.
Now you know why I am not allowed to enter the targeting coordinates.

Okay, DeathDart Where is that missile heading?
 
DeathDart said:
One: the calculation I made was based on theoretical Time Space.

Two: We are in relativistic Space Time, this calculation should not work.

Three: The Time Space calculation shows a gravitational field of 2.407E-2 m/s. THIS IS BOGUS DUH!

In relativistic Space Time that would always mean that time always has a value less than one.

How to switch to Times Space Calculations.

The Gravitationally Dependent Time GDT Equation for determining the flow of Time= 1+(SQRT(gt2/g)= Time Flow

gt2 = 6.674E-11 m^2 sec-1 The gravitational field strength where the flow of time (In Space) equals 2.

g=9.81ms^2 sec Earth surface gravitational field.

The time flow in a 9.81m^2 field is 1+SQRT(gt2/g)= 1.0000026=1+2.6E-6

The neutrinos were apparently going (v-c)/c = (2.37 ± 0.32 (stat.)(sys.)) ×10-5 faster than light.
1+2.37e-5 (c)

1+2.6E-5 GDT compares favourably to the 1+ 2.37E-5.measured at CERN.

The difference between Relativistic Space Time and GDT Time Space may be related to the geometry of the gravitational field. A gravitational field at a distance becomes a point source or relatively flat spatial geometry.

Inside a planet or mass the geometry of the gravitational field might be flat, so that Time Space does apply.


My previous calculation in this thread was in error. and I should have stopped after the first conversion. OK I am a BIG STUPID HEAD.
Click to expand...

This doesn't really answer my question I'm afraid. If I have an ordinary lump of rock of density ρ placed on the Earth's surface, what is the gravitational field strength inside the rock?

Oh, and your formula is dimensionally incorrect with the units you have specified for gt2.
 
My math just turned into a stampede of cats.

I still believe faster time exists, and that the CERN OPERA result is an example of it.

The shielded mass, is taking on water, luckily it is anchored in shallow water next to that volcano.

The centripetal force measurement did a Cheshire Cat.

gt2=6.674 E-11 appears to be quite off.

Other than that, it's cool.
 
ctamblyn said:
This doesn't really answer my question I'm afraid. If I have an ordinary lump of rock of density ρ placed on the Earth's surface, what is the gravitational field strength inside the rock?

Oh, and your formula is dimensionally incorrect with the units you have specified for gt2.
Click to expand...

I don't think DeathDart has ever grasped the importance of correct units, and I've yet to see him post any dimensionally correct formula. I lost all hope a long time ago.
 
edd said:
I don't think DeathDart has ever grasped the importance of correct units, and I've yet to see him post any dimensionally correct formula. I lost all hope a long time ago.
Click to expand...


Simply his statement beginning with 'My math' made me giggle.

As if.
 
Reality Check said:
That shows that your idea is just a fantasy since it does not match reality.

The rest of your post is gibberish.
Click to expand...

If it is a fantasy, why does the math matter?

One way or the other I am going to drive a stake through the heart of dark matter. Then cut its head off.

The math is cleaning up but it doesn't do so good on the CERN measurement. It is becoming much more self consistent.

gt2 and/or the equation for using it appear to be badly flawed.

The concept of faster time flow appears consistent within a relativistic framework.

The CERN result is pretty strict about what results are acceptable depending on what model I use. If the beam path is being subjected to the full surface gravity, then gt2 is way off (by an order, or 2).

Another fundamental problem determining how any gt2 factor is applied.

With velocity and relativity you have SQRT(1-(V^2/c^2))
You also have e=mc^2 or the Newtonian (mV^2)/2

What do I have. Lets see a bunch of proper motion anomalies that the experimenters mumble their way through. The galactic velocity curves which are easy for any math, because they are so poorly constrained. Change the mass, or its distribution and almost anything works.

Not a whole lot of real numbers with any certainty.

Not that most researchers would publish anything that went against the orthodoxy. It took 169 Researchers to make them feel safe enough to publish the CERN result.

And one observation, the orthodoxy now is a lot less tolerant than it was 30 years ago. I guess raising college tuition to employ all these "geniuses" made politics a more relevant skill, then thinking. Politics as in "if we all have the same story, none of us can be attacked".

I know muddled thinking, and what I see in physics is a lot of muddled thinking. Dark Matter, not just difficult to detect matter, impossible to detect matter. Keep our stories straight, and we won't have to produce any thing real with results that are verifiable.

The easy path leads nowhere. It is too hard to challenge Einstein, it is easier to create a reason for the problem to go away and look brilliant.

Any more stuff gets swept under that rug and OSHA will fine them.
 
DeathDart - you seem to be under the impression that only you and a few other mavericks find dark matter unsatisfying. You are not. Alternative theories are commonplace.

However, the serious contenders make physical sense. Your equations and ideas simply don't. If dark matter deserves to fail as an idea we will make it fail - you might not think it but there are good scientists working on the problem.
 
As far as CERN is concerned, assuming that the gravitational field generated by a mass is constant, then the gravitational field within a mass can be considered to be independent of its velocity.

If the Solar system is moving at about 2.06 million meters per second, then the surface of the earth is experiencing a flow of time, (based on relativity), of 1 +2.37E-5.

If the mass below the surface is partially or totally shielded from the effects of velocity, it has the same gravitational field, but the flow of time is faster than on the surface. The relativistic effects of velocity do not affect the flow of time within a sufficient mass.

If gravitational mass was not constant, then a runaway condition can occur causing a gravitational collapse of the universe.

Relativistic effects are visible on the surface of stars traveling with relativistic velocity, but that does not address anything about the interior of the star.

While an relativistic isotopic atom does experience the lengthening of time, it does not have enough mass to produce its own gravitational field. At some threshold of mass, a mass may begin to separate itself from its local time environment. So the surface of the Earth is experiencing the relativistic effects of its velocity, while the interior may not. This would explain the CERN result without changing relativity.

It would buttress the argument that the gravitational attraction of a mass is independent of its velocity. What the field does outside the mass is irrelevant.

The inertial mass is dependent upon its velocity. This argues that the inertial mass increasing with velocity occurs in the space outside of the mass.

Jump in here if you see something wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom