[captcass (OP)]

To the distant observer, 1.0000000254989604 is longer (bigger) time than 1.0000000003282558. It takes longer to measure the tick, so time is slower there. So Mercury is  .0000000254989604 slower than the distant observer’s 1 second.

Sun solution:
For the dilation factor I used a radius of 8.22428833*10⁸ m, which is 1.27192*10⁸ m = 0.00018 of the radius above the surface of the Sun. I believe this is acceptable considering the Sun’s dynamic nature and varying densities within its mass.

G = 6.67430×10⁻¹¹ m3⋅kg−1    GM = 1.32751827*10²⁰    2GM = 2.65503654*10²⁰

Surface Dilation Factor: (T = 1)
T₀ = T√((1-(2GM/Rc²)) =
T√(((1-((2.65503654*10²⁰)/(( 8.22428833*10⁸)*(299792458²) = 0.9999982040213737

V_Og=(((√((c² – T₀c²))/(√3))) =
(√((299792.458²)-(299792.458²* 0.9999982040213737))/√3 = 231.95 km/s

[Kryptid]

I'm seeing a problem here. Your equation predicts the same orbital velocity for the Sun (or sufficiently Sun-like star), regardless of where it happens to be in the Milky Way. In reality, star orbital velocity varies as distance from the galactic center varies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve#/media/File:Rotation_curve_of_spiral_galaxy_Messier_33_(Triangulum).png

[captcass (OP)]

Your equation predicts the same orbital velocity for the Sun (or sufficiently Sun-like star), regardless of where it happens to be in the Milky Way.

Exactly. It varies by the mass (time dilation) of the body rather than the distance.

We don't see this in a stellar system because the mass of the planets is so small compared to the star. I'm sure someone with a bigger computer than mine will be able to figure the dilation of the planets' mass into it, but it is so miniscule, it really doesn't matter.

But you note how it works for every body. Again, densities in space slow time, but the continuum has to evolve forward as a whole, so the velocities are how time makes up the difference. Nothing can resist the passage of time.

The big problem with galaxies has been that GR does not work. It does not work because it is just based on how light travels in a spherical dilation pit thru the Lorentz transformations. That is not what we are seeing when we look at galaxies. We are looking at the evolving continuum.

The planets' velocities are derived relative to the dilation gradient of the central mass, the Sun. The moons, in relation to the central mass, the planet. This is happening in conjunction to the Sun's evolution, as an entangled quantum system. The Sun, being so massive, is part of a huge system, a cosmic hurricane. It, and its system, are evolving in a more focused x,z, t direction, which is closer to the fundamental direction of evolution in the MECO's vortex than the stellar system's bodies relative to the central mass. This is why the planetary formula result has to be divided by √3 for the dimensional result: what would be the planetary velocity is the velocity in the fundamental direction of the stellar system, the cube of the diagonal in my paper. The planetary result for a star is the result for the fundamental direction, and on the galactic scale, that has to be distributed thru 3 dimensions.

A cube with sides = 1 has a diagonal of √3.

I don't know how clear that is. It's been a long day. I describe it fuller in the paper.
 

 

[jeffreyH]

Let's see, 75% of the astrophysicists in the English-speaking universities have found no fault with the math, but you think it is wrong.....Hmmmm.

Citation needed.

[jeffreyH]

spherical dilation pit

Is this some kind of new age woo?

[captcass (OP)]

Citation needed.

I have my own domains and websites and track my own stats relative to my mailings to different groups. So go stuff it. I don't put up with AH's who call me a liar. Look what a damn fool you have made of yourself so far today. Nasty minded, vicious, Idiot.

It must be hard to live with so much anger and hate for people. Always venting and attacking. If you do that face to face with people, too, I know you are a very lonely, disillusioned, frustrated, soul with no friends. People don't put up with your type of crap in person. I pity you. I have done what I have done for your sake, my brother. To give people like you hope, faith and peace of mind.

See, I can dish it, too.

This will be my last reply to you.

[jeffreyH]

Let us have a look at the Journal Of Cosmology, that renowned periodical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Cosmology

Crackpottery in the extreme.

[jeffreyH]

Now let us look at the captain's version

https://www.journalofmoderncosmology.com/

[jeffreyH]

For submission of a manuscript a processing fee of $50? Art thou a grifter? An article publishing fee of $225? Thou art a grifter! As Jesus threw the money lenders out of the temple so should thou be cast from the forum of science.

[Kryptid]

Exactly. It varies by the mass (time dilation) of the body rather than the distance.

Then your model doesn't match the data. Didn't you see the chart I linked?

[Origin]

I have my own domains and websites and track my own stats relative to my mailings to different groups. So go stuff it. I don't put up with AH's who call me a liar. Look what a damn fool you have made of yourself so far today. Nasty minded, vicious, Idiot

I realize you have invested a lot of time and energy into your ideas so it is disappointing when you are shown that those ideas are wrong, but golly you shouldn't go bonkers, just step back and realize you can still just learn real physics and further your understanding of the universe that way.

[captcass (OP)]

Then your model doesn't match the data. Didn't you see the chart I linked?

It does match the data. Areas of larger mass have larger velocities. Didn't you see the chart in my paper? Your model is explained by a dark matter halo that doesn't exist.

The problem has been that the velocities cannot be explained without DM. Why do some velocities increase with distance instead of decrease? Dark Matter? No. It is because at distance it is not the gravity well of the galaxy responsible for the velocities, as in a stellar system, but the star's own well. In close proximity to the center, the MECO's gravity well is deeper than the star's and then it is responsible for the velocities, as in the stellar systems.
The math works, for all bodies. Can you explain why it is wrong despite the fact that the math works for all bodies? Is it just a fluke?

 

you can still just learn real physics and further your understanding of the universe that way.

I am light years ahead of you. "learn physics"? lol. Really?

[alancalverd]

Beware - anyone who implies "light years" is a measure of time plainly doesn't understand cosmology. Best not to advertise the fact.

There have been grumbles. You would do well to moderate your posts so I don't have to.

[captcass (OP)]

anyone who implies "light years" is a measure of time plainly doesn't understand cosmology

Who would think I meant such an idiotic thing? I feel like I am in the twilight zone here. Jeffrey can wish me an imminent death, liable my character, over and over again, because he disagrees with my ideas. Then some knucklehead assumes I mean time with a measure of distance. Anyone ever hear of, "I'm miles ahead of you..."? And I get a warning?

So. I am encouraged by Kryptid, as we are now having a discussion that is on topic. I will no longer respond to crap that I am surprised the moderators allow to remain. Look back at this thread. Just what did Jeffrey contribute to the topic at hand? Nothing. This makes a mockery of the forum. It also stops others from contributing, lest they be set upon by the likes of the trolls in this thread.

My model is new. But not a single individual has found a flaw proving it violates an accepted principle nor a flaw in the math. Not just here.

I am sorry you can't see the quantum field the QP's are studying and working in with great success. THEY don't see it either, except in their maths, which is why they all just agreed at Copenhagen not to talk about the things that made no sense, like what is outside the singularity and where is space expanding into, and how space can have an edge, etc.

I am explaining that. Those things are not a problem because it is an eternally evolving energy field. As for entropy and the conservation of energy, this will create a lot of grumbles, because it violates current theories, so if you are going to ban me, well, so be it.....

The CMB is the intitial energy state of the spacetime continuum and is total entropy. When a vortex in time forms, and a MECO develops and generates the gravity waves that form the spiral arms, the entropy of the CMB decreases as molecular clouds form that form stars, etc., etc., etc. This is a decreasing of entropy, not an increasing of entropy. It is an organizing into form.

And, since the universe is perceptually infinite, and time is eternal, and the fundamental force of the universe as per my model, there is an infinite potential energy there that can simply be realized or reabsorbed back into the potential.

We know nature repeats itself and is logical. The hurricane and spiral galaxy are the same phenomenon; one in the relatively dense atmosphere, one in the CMB. Yet ever since Hubble, we have been desperately trying to explain the logical with the completely illogical (except QM). I am sorry everyone has become so comfortable with that, but sooner or later, since it IS a logical universe, logic will prevail. If not my logic, then another, better one. But I can guarantee it will not contain the word "dark". Because that just means "we don't know". So what if it is illogical, the QM math works! Well, logical people care.   

So unless anyone wants a serious discussion or has a serious question for me, I won't be replying anymore. Kryptid, shall we continue?  I mean, otherwise, what is the point? How would any new viewer even know where to drop in on this thread with all the meaningless posts? I had hoped to share something exciting, but found the same sickness infecting all the social media. Sad.

Anyone who wants to discuss this with me privately, lest they incur the wrath of the Jeffries, my email address is on all my sites. I can also put my own dedicated forum should enough of you want that.



 

[Zer0]

For the Benefit of SCIENCE...
🙏
Let PEACE Prevail.
✌️

All the Best Captain!
👍
Regards,
0.
🖖





P.S. - (Edit - Sorry)
☹️




Quotation-Arthur-Schopenhauer-All-truth-passes-through-three-stages-First-it-is-ridiculed-26-19-03.jpg (73.99 kB . 1200x640 - viewed 3169 times)

[Kryptid]

It does match the data.

How can it? You said that the orbital speeds in your model don't change with distance, whereas the data we have show that it does. Since you model relies on time dilation, then the orbital velocity of objects should be strongly correlated with their surface gravity. The orbital velocity distribution of Sun-like stars should therefore be noticeably different from that of red giants and white dwarfs. Has any such observation been made? The fact that you are using different equations for stars and planets is also suspect. Why can't one equation work for them all?

Didn't you see the chart in my paper?

I see two charts, but the first seems to be about the observed rotation curves and the second is about dark matter.

Your model is explained by a dark matter halo that doesn't exist.

My model? When did I make a model?

EDIT: Okay, I think I better understand your argument now. The time dilation at the surface of the star is not the only thing that matters, but also the time dilation due to how deep into the galaxy's gravity well the star is as well, yes? If so, I have to admit that I find that to be intriguing. I'd like to actually make my own chart using your equations in order to further investigate this. A potential problem with that would be finding an accurate distribution of mass within the Milky Way. We obviously can't use the galaxy rotation curve itself to obtain that data because your model posits that the mass itself is only partly responsible for that curve. If I can find the data, I'll look into it.

[captcass (OP)]

You said that the orbital speeds in your model don't change with distance,

Like all gravity wells, the orbits are determined by how deep in the well the body is. But once a body's gradient is deeper than where it is in the well, it's own well determines the velocity because it has to keep up regardless of its position in the system.

I have been thinking the logical transition point would be the corotation circle, but haven't had time to look further into that.

In the diagram in my paper, which I will paste here if someone tells me how, the top shows how velocities increase with distance and mass concentration as observed. The bottom one shows how the velocities increase as mass density increases by 1.5 in the maximum stellar model. Velocities increasing relative to mass, which is time dilation.

Neither of these contain dark matter elements, so they are clean. The DM curve is shown separately.

Sorry, I didn't mean "your" model. I meant the DM Model.

Has any such observation been made? The fact that you are using different equations for stars and planets is also suspect. Why can't one equation work for them all?

Sadly we have very little data on individual stars. Betelguese seems to have the most data, and it is a giant. There is enough uncertainty in both M and R, that the equation can work, but no one has yet determined the rotation velocity. As it is nearby, the only info I could find was ~230, the Sun's velocity. I emailed my list to see if anyone knew it and no one did, and the one fellow I spoke to on the phone said that was all the data they had, really, on any individual star as regards mass and diameter.

The arms of the galaxies are dilation pits that have other dynamics going on. They are usually inclined to the ecliptic and the gravitational and Coriolis forces rotate them around so that leading edges become trailing edges, etc., as well. This can work to keep similar masses bound within the system.

Why can't one equation work for them all?

The planets and moons in our system have nearly circular, nearly independent orbits that rely on the Sun's gravitational field. As above, this is not the case in a galaxy for stars beyond the point where the star's well is deeper.

Our Sun is beyond that point. Just as the planets and moons evolve as part of the planetary and solar systems, so too, do stars deep enough within the galactic gravity well, and the planetary formula should work there. There is no individual star data, but we do know that velocities follow expected curves close to the center.

Once the star is the cause of the velocity, I am postulating the the planetary result is the velocity in the fundamental direction, the cube diagonal in my paper, which for a cube with sides of 1, has a length of √3. Dividing by that gives you the apparent 3 dimensional velocity around the galaxy. I am not positive that is the actual reason. It could just be as simple as the different dynamics require a different formula, like the vis-aviva being necessary for comets. 

[captcass (OP)]

A potential problem with that would be finding an accurate distribution of mass within the Milky Way.

The Milky Way is the galaxy we know least about. Can't see the forest for the trees. That's why I was so happy to find A. Tamm et al clean data on M31.

Thank you for taking the time to try to understand.

[Kryptid]

Before I try my hand at making a chart...

For anyone who happens to know, can orbital velocity in a galactic disk be calculated purely from the mass within the galactic orbit of the star? That is, does the gravity of the galactic mass beyond the star's orbit cancel out for a disk in a similar way that it does for a shell of matter (i.e. shell theorem)? If so, that would make it a lot easier to calculate the mass distribution of a galaxy and therefore different time dilation values at different distances from the center.

[Halc]

For anyone who happens to know, can orbital velocity in a galactic disk be calculated purely from the mass within the galactic orbit of the star?

No twice.
1) The shape of the mass inside the radius matters. A spherical distribution of matter will attract like a point mass, per the shell theorem, but an object orbiting a disk-distribution of mass does not obey Kepler's laws.
2) Mass outside the radius counts as well, slowing the orbit time. This has no effect if it is spherically distributed, but again, it isn't.

The orbit of our solar system is a bit like the edge of a tutu. It goes around once every ~220 MY, but also oscilates above and below the galactic plane with a cycle of ~90 MY or so IIRC. Nothing takes an elliptical path like planets around a lone star do.