Declan Posted July 1, 2016 Author Share Posted July 1, 2016 Original work. It should not matter, so long as there is a reasoned argument and the maths to back it up. What is wrong with you people, can't you open your mind a bit and follow a logical train of thought. I know GR is a very successful theory, but it is not the be-all and end-all of Science. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

ajb Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) It should not matter, so long as there is a reasoned argument and the maths to back it up. Looking at what you have said here, and your papers, I do not think you have much of a reasoned argument. What is wrong with you people, can't you open your mind a bit and follow a logical train of thought. We do this all this time... what is your point? I know GR is a very successful theory, but it is not the be-all and end-all of Science. And I don't think that anyone here clamied that general relativity is the be-all and end-all of science. (In fact, some of us have made small contributions to gravity theories other than GR - my contribution is more mathematical but has been cited in a paper on a novel gravity theory. And that is not a 'paper' on viXra ) Edited July 1, 2016 by ajb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Strange Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Incidentally, I did a calculation on the extra inflow acceleration that is required to explain the Orbital Velocity for a star at a distance of 15000 light years away from the center of the M33 galaxy (travelling at 100 km/sec). The acceleration comes out to 7.04669x10^-11 m/sec^2. So for a star close to the black hole, this tiny acceleration would make very little difference to the star's orbit due to Newtonian gravity. Well within the error bars I would guess. If we step back from the slightly non-standard talk of energy flows and sub-quantum waves, is it correct to say that you explain rotation curves by adding an extra constant inward force? It might be more productive if we focus on the model, rather than the proposed mechanism (which isn't really testable). So we could just treat this as another modified gravity theory. If so, have you checked that the same inward force can explain the speeds of galaxies in clusters? I think this is quite important because it is my understanding that other modified gravity models have to be tuned differently for galaxies and galaxy clusters. If your model was able to fit both, then that could be a strong point in its favour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

swansont Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 sub-quantum = small than quanta (quanta are made of such waves: 3D standing waves). Quantum means discrete; it makes no mention of size. smaller than quanta is a meaningless description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Mordred Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) I'm not sure why you would expect us to readily accept the validity of your personal papers. I question any paper presented to me. There was a recent reply that has some excellent detail on the four acceleration. This is something you should consider for your papers. After your goal should be improving all your papers. I'm not exactly sure what your question has to do with transverse and longitudinal mass. Proper acceleration is the magnitude of four-acceleration. So if you have a path (in this case a circle), you can parametrize it, find four-acceleration, then take its norm to find proper acceleration: [math]x^\mu (t)= (ct,Rcos \, \omega t,Rsin \, \omega t)[/math] [math]u^\mu (t)= \frac{dx^\mu}{d \tau} = \frac{dt}{d \tau} \frac{dx^\mu}{dt} = \frac{dt}{d \tau} (c,-R\omega sin \, \omega t,R\omega cos \, \omega t)[/math] we know that: [math]d\tau^2 = dt^2 -c^{-2}( dx^2 + dy^2)[/math] or: [math]\left (\frac{d\tau}{dt} \right )^2 = 1 -c^{-2} \left ( \left ( \frac{dx}{dt} \right )^2 + \left ( \frac{dy}{dt} \right )^2 \right ) = 1 -c^{-2} \left ( R^2 \omega^2 sin^2 \, \omega t + R^2 \omega^2 cos^2 \, \omega t \right ) = 1-\frac{R^2 \omega^2}{c^2}[/math] So: [math]u^\mu (t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-R^2 \omega^2/c^2}} (c,-R\omega sin \, \omega t,R\omega cos \, \omega t)[/math] Then we can compute four-acceleration: [math]a^\mu (t) = \frac{dt}{d \tau} \frac{du^\mu}{dt} = \frac{1}{1-R^2 \omega^2/c^2} (0,-R\omega^2 cos \, \omega t,-R\omega^2 sin \, \omega t)[/math] And from there we can compute proper acceleration: [math]a_{prop}= \sqrt{a^\mu a_\mu} = \sqrt{\frac{R^2\omega^4 cos^2 \, \omega t+R^2\omega^4 sin^2 \, \omega t}{(1-R^2 \omega^2/c^2)^2}} = \frac{R\omega^2}{1-R^2 \omega^2/c^2}[/math] So, given the circular path's radius and the object's angular velocity, the proper acceleration felt by the object is [math]R\omega^2/ (1-R^2 \omega^2/c^2)[/math]. Note that the object's tangential speed [math]v=R \omega[/math] can also be plugged into this equation to get: [math]a_{prop} = \frac{v^2/R}{1-v^2/c^2} = \frac{\gamma^2 v^2}{R}[/math] . This is a good example of attention to details that you should look into. If I were to pick up a paper that included these details I would look at that paper with greater care. The reason being is that it would show a solid understanding of the current standard model and metrics. A good model proposal should always include the standard metrics that the alternative metrics are compared to. When I see papers that don't include the standard model details. My first first and foremost consideration is that the Author developed the paper to suit his level of understanding. Unfortunately that usually means there is a lack of understanding in the standard model. The next consideration is the nature of the equations used. If I see nothing greater than the rudimentary equations of a metric or of several metrics. My next concern is how indepth did you look into those equations. Did you study the mathematical proof that underly the equations? A good paper will detail how those equations are originally derived. The next factor is testability. You should detail viable means of proving and disproving any model. In other words model testing I'm fairly confident that the resident experts, moderators and well versed forum members feel the same way when reviewing a speculative model Oh forgot to add. I would also expect a good list of reference papers not including your own Edited July 1, 2016 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Declan Posted July 2, 2016 Author Share Posted July 2, 2016 I understand that it is important to get into the maths of GR and metrics if you are proposing a change to it. The thing is I don't have a problem with the current formulation of GR, it stays the same, except for the minor change I have suggested to the Schwartzchild Metric concerning black holes. To Swansont: But quantum particles are known to have certain sizes - so smaller than those size scales could be referred to as sub-quantum. To Strange: Can you please indicate the differences in galaxy clusters that are relevant to orbital speeds or Dark Matter as I do not know about this detail? Thanks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

ajb Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 (edited) I understand that it is important to get into the maths of GR and metrics if you are proposing a change to it. The thing is I don't have a problem with the current formulation of GR, it stays the same, except for the minor change I have suggested to the Schwartzchild Metric concerning black holes. But no changes to other metrics? Not even for the metrics in the same class like the Kerr metric? Again, this seems very odd that a mathematical change to general relativity (or some small addition) would single out the Schwartzchild solution as the only solution that gets modified. This feels really at odds with the equivalence principle. But quantum particles are known to have certain sizes - so smaller than those size scales could be referred to as sub-quantum. But it is not as simple as that. You maybe thinking of the 'classical radius', which is not enough (which is why I was amazed to see 'r' in on of your papers on the electron/positron field) The 'size' of a fundamental particle is not really a clear notion. Mathematically we think of particles as point-like objects, so saying that are of 'zero size' is okay. But usually we are thinking of an effective size which comes from how easily a test particle collides with the subject particle - this is the scattering cross section. One can then think about this 'classically' as the particle having some size. However, this effective size depends on the particles you throw at the subject particle. This size is not really a true constant. Oh forgot to add. I would also expect a good list of reference papers not including your own I would say not just your own papers. A little self-citation is hard to avoid with a series of papers on a similar subject. But the point is that science does not develop in great leaps by individuals working alone. There will always be someone else you can cite. ------------------------------ And just for the sake of it, take a look at Tsuguhiko Asakawa, Hisayoshi Muraki and Satoshi Watamura Gravity theory on Poisson manifold with R-flux, Fortsch.Phys. 63 (2015) 683-704 (arXiv:1508.05706 [hep-th]). In that paper they build a novel kind of gravity theory on a Poisson manifold using the associated Lie algebroid. They use some general results about Riemannian geometry on Lie algebroids and manage to include R-flux into the picture. Their motivation - and they work further on this with Poisson Courant algebroids in another paper - is to understand stringy backgrounds with fluxes. My points are i) People are looking at gravity beyond GR ii) They use lots of mathematics to do this iii) They cite lots of other works that are related - including more pure mathematical ones iv) They publish in good physics, theoertical physics or mathematical physics journals This is the standard we hold eveyone to in science. Edited July 2, 2016 by ajb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Declan Posted July 2, 2016 Author Share Posted July 2, 2016 I guess there might be a similar change required in other metrics if they are applicable to black holes. But if no black holes are involved then there would be no change as no gravitational collapse is involved. Indeed the classical radius of a particle is an arbitrary sort of definition. In fact each quantum particle is a 3D standing wave with infinite extent - but as these standing wave structures are comprised of waves, then these waves must necessarily be smaller than the structures they form. As the wave function for a particle extends to infinity there is an 'r' in the wave function so that you can know what the complex vector is at any point in space and at any moment in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

ajb Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 I guess there might be a similar change required in other metrics if they are applicable to black holes. Don't guess - calculate! But if no black holes are involved then there would be no change as no gravitational collapse is involved. This is what we don't really understand. Imagine you are in a box with no windows. I move this box so that it is in orbit around a large spherical body - a star or a black hole. Without opening the box to look outside, how could you tell if you are in orbit round a black hole or just a star? The local physics, according to GR, cannot tell the difference. But what about your 'tweak'? This and other issues, makes us think that you cannot just tweak the theory for one class of solutions without changing all of the theory. Adding this 'energy field' should have some effect for other space-times. In fact each quantum particle is a 3D standing wave with infinite extent - but as these standing wave structures are comprised of waves, then these waves must necessarily be smaller than the structures they form. In general these waves are not standing waves. The wave function of a given particle can be quite complicated - if bound then the wave functions are L^2 integrable. In general they are more general that that. Still, sub-quantum is not a meaningful term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

swansont Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 But quantum particles are known to have certain sizes - so smaller than those size scales could be referred to as sub-quantum. The electron is a point particle. How do you get smaller than that? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Strange Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 I understand that it is important to get into the maths of GR and metrics if you are proposing a change to it. The thing is I don't have a problem with the current formulation of GR, it stays the same, except for the minor change I have suggested to the Schwartzchild Metric concerning black holes. I find it hard to believe that you can make a change like this and yet expect everything else to just stay the same. Do you have a mathematical proof of this? Can you please indicate the differences in galaxy clusters that are relevant to orbital speeds or Dark Matter as I do not know about this detail? This was one of the first pieces of evidence for dark matter: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1937ApJ....86..217Z And much work has been done on it since. It is also one of the biggest problems for all modified gravity explanations. So it is particularly important that you can test your model against this data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Declan Posted July 2, 2016 Author Share Posted July 2, 2016 To Swansont: An electron has a centre, sure, where its fields appear to come from, but it is not a point particle - it has charge layers (like an onion) and there is even Attosecond resolution video of an electron done by Lund University showing an electron riding up and down on a light wave - Google it and see for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

ajb Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 An electron has a centre, sure, where its fields appear to come from, but it is not a point particle But it is understood as a point-like particle in all our models. Loosley one can think of quantum mechanics - or maybe better quantum field theory - as smearing this our when it comes to interactions. - it has charge layers (like an onion) ... What is a charge layer? So far there is no evidence of any internal structure of a electron. ...and there is even Attosecond resolution video of an electron done by Lund University showing an electron riding up and down on a light wave - Google it and see for yourself. We should be very careful here and read what the paper actually says they have imaged. Anyway, I don't see that this has much to do with your claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Declan Posted July 2, 2016 Author Share Posted July 2, 2016 To ajb: Ok well if you are in orbit around a black hole with inward flowing energy field then you would be very slightly length contracted along the radial line from the centre of the black hole, and very slightly time dilated too (apart from the time dilation due to orbital speed, gravitational potential and frame dragging corrections), but given the small size of the inward acceleration due to the flow, the effects might be too small to measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

ajb Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 Ok well if you are in orbit around a black hole with inward flowing energy field then you would be very slightly length contracted along the radial line from the centre of the black hole, and very slightly time dilated too (apart from the time dilation due to orbital speed, gravitational potential and frame dragging corrections), but given the small size of the inward acceleration due to the flow, the effects might be too small to measure. But I cannot measure any length contraction effects on myself. So I have no idea what you are on about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Declan Posted July 2, 2016 Author Share Posted July 2, 2016 When an electron is in free space it is a spherical standing wave, but when interacting with other particles it can assume other more complex wave function solutions too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

ajb Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 When an electron is in free space it is a spherical standing wave, but when interacting with other particles it can assume other more complex wave function solutions too. Depends on what you are talking about... a single free particle has a plane wave as its wave function. You can of course build wave packets from such waves. Anyway, this seems to have little to do with the main objections to our ideas. Anyway, please comment on what I have said about length contraction. The same holds for time dilation. I cannot measure any time dilation or length contraction effects on myself. One needs to compare clocks and rulers with other observers to get any such effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Declan Posted July 2, 2016 Author Share Posted July 2, 2016 To ajb: Fair point, if you can't look out to anything else you wouldn't be able to tell. I don't know of any way to tell the difference - maybe something in the quantum vacuum might be detectable & reveal the difference? The statistics of virtual particles or something... To Strange: Thanks for the link - I will have a look when I get a chance.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

swansont Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 To Swansont: An electron has a centre, sure, where its fields appear to come from, but it is not a point particle - it has charge layers (like an onion) and there is even Attosecond resolution video of an electron done by Lund University showing an electron riding up and down on a light wave - Google it and see for yourself. Do you have a link for the first claim? Scattering experiments with which I am familiar are consistent with there being no size for the charge (and that the field is spherically symmetric). If there is a charge distribution, someone must have measured it. As for the second, I don't see what relevance it has that a charged particle would respond to an oscillating electric field. That tells you nothing about its size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

ajb Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 Fair point, if you can't look out to anything else you wouldn't be able to tell. It is more than that really. Just in special relativity for now, as you are at rest with respect to yourself your clock and rules when compared with themselves do not change. There are no time dilation or length contraction on yourself as you see it. This makes perfect sense. You are travelling at a whole spectrum of relativistic speeds (0 < v < c) as measured by all the other possible observers. There is no notion of absolute rest and so effects on yourself as measured by you make no sense. I don't know of any way to tell the difference - maybe something in the quantum vacuum might be detectable & reveal the difference? The statistics of virtual particles or something... Why would it? Locally the theory is Poincare invariant. There is no notion of absolute rest and so nothing universal to comapre things with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Declan Posted July 2, 2016 Author Share Posted July 2, 2016 To Swansont: Here is an article about it, the actual video is available on YouTube. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080222095358.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

ajb Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 I don't think Swansont has any argument with the science here - maybe he does he is much more in tune with experimental science that I am - he questions the relavence. The article does not suggest that we should think of the electron as a tiny ball of some given radius. Also, it does nor suggest any substructure of the electron. Maybe this thread is almost over. So far all your ideas are very loose and based on misunderstanding physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Bignose Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 What is wrong with you people, can't you open your mind a bit and follow a logical train of thought. Seriously dude? This is science. People bat ideas around all the time. As a 'published author', you should know this. Unless it was a pure 'pay-to-publish' journal with no credibility whatsoever: https://scholarlyoa.com/2014/11/20/bogus-journal-accepts-profanity-laced-anti-spam-paper/ 1) you can't take it personally. They are attacking the idea, not the person. There is no such thing as a perfect idea, every idea goes through this. 2) Instead of lashing out, why don't you address the points with more rigor? People are asking pointed questions because you don't seen to care to answer them. Maybe try that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Declan Posted July 2, 2016 Author Share Posted July 2, 2016 I don't mind talking about the idea, and have been doing so. In other discussion groups I have been part of people have been more interested to understand an idea fully and then criticize, rather than attack at every step of the way and make personal comments along the way. That is not Science it's arrogance. I have tried to explain an interesting new idea that could explain effects without requiring Dark Matter, and I thought this would be a good forum for it, maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Mordred Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 (edited) Sorry you feel that way. Quite frankly you've gotten some excellent advice should you choose to take it. With the inaccurate descriptions within your post and your articles. I'm honestly not sure why you expected instant acceptance of your papers. Looks how long it took to straighten out the term spacetime flowing for example. You really shouldn't take criticisms of your model as a personal attack. Quite frankly you have received advise from several members who all have varying physics degrees. All the way up to and including Ph.D. Its up to you to choose to listen or ignore. One aspect of your model is whether or not its compatible with current GR. Quite frankly from what you described and what I read from your papers I honestly don't believe it is. Stating that it is without performing the math is an assumption. Which is why I posted the materials I did. You also cannot blame people for correcting your terminology usage. They are 100% correct in doing so Take for example.... " The effect this flow of space towards the black hole would have on objects embedded in that space (such as other stars/planets) would be for them to flow with the space towards the black hole too. This would appear to an observer on those stars/planets as being a greater acceleration towards the black hole. Also as the flow rate of the space-time energy field towards the black hole would be fairly constant with distance away from the black hole. So this extra effect (that appears to be acceleration)" This is from your paper, this paper has a grand total of 1 formula. Which doesnt show observer effects on measurements. So lets look at your supposed peer reviewed reference papers. Lets see here, well this statement is definetely wrong. "The speed of lights apparent constancy then results from the time dilation that accompanies lights change in speed. The quantity c =g f is the speed of light in the F field, and c remains constant, where fc g is the General relativistic time dilation factor. To an outside observer (in a weaker F field) observing the reference frame, both the rate of time and the speed of light of the observed frame are slower." The speed of light is invariant. Under Lorentz transformation the factors that change is length contraction and time dilation. Thats just one example I can easily pick your papers apart. However statements such as this makes me question the peer review. Lorentz transformation. First two postulates. 1) the results of movement in different frames must be identical 2) light travels by a constant speed c in a vacuum in all frames. Consider 2 linear axes x (moving with constant velocity and [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] (at rest) with x moving in constant velocity v in the positive [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] direction. Time increments measured as a coordinate as dt and [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] using two identical clocks. Neither [latex]dt,d\acute{t}[/latex] or [latex]dx,d\acute{x}[/latex] are invariant. They do not obey postulate 1. A linear transformation between primed and unprimed coordinates above in space time ds between two events is [latex]ds^2=c^2t^2=c^2dt-dx^2=c^2\acute{t}^2-d\acute{x}^2[/latex] Invoking speed of light postulate 2. [latex]d\acute{x}=\gamma(dx-vdt), cd\acute{t}=\gamma cdt-\frac{dx}{c}[/latex] Where [latex]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}[/latex] Time dilation dt=proper time ds=line element since [latex]d\acute{t}^2=dt^2[/latex] is invariant. an observer at rest records consecutive clock ticks seperated by space time interval [latex]dt=d\acute{t}[/latex] she receives clock ticks from the x direction separated by the time interval dt and the space interval dx=vdt. [latex]dt=d\acute{t}^2=\sqrt{dt^2-\frac{dx^2}{c^2}}=\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}dt[/latex] so the two inertial coordinate systems are related by the lorentz transformation [latex]dt=\frac{d\acute{t}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}=\gamma d\acute{t}[/latex] So the time interval dt is longer than interval [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] [latex]\acute{t}=\frac{t-vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{x}=\frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{y}=y[/latex] [latex]\acute{z}=z[/latex] Edited July 3, 2016 by Mordred 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts