How Gravity Works

[ChildInAZoo]

So, Farsight, in order to substantiate your claim, please confirm your prediction by
a) picking any galaxy or galaxy cluster with rotation that as been established
b) calculating the energy of the gravitational field
c) showing the effect of that energy on the rotation of the chosen structure
d) showing that the rotation predicted by your theory matches the observed rotation

LOL. Your pretence that these are "fair" and "direct" questions fools nobody.

It appeared to fool newolder, who specifically cites them as legitimate questions. Why are these not legitimate questions to ask of you? Are you simply declaring them to be invalid? Are you the Pope of gravity? Like most of your assertions, you offer nothing to back up your claims in this matter.

Obviously someone must understand the relevant mathematics, because there are hundreds of papers that make use of the galactic rotation curves. There are even papers that try to account for these curves using general relativity alone. Yet you are claiming that none of the physicists that write these papers understand the mathematics?

No. And that's what you call a straw man argument.

Well, then, who doesn't understand the mathematics? Do you understand the relevant mathematics?

...what are you supporting your claim with?

General relativity plus good evidence that the universe is expanding in line with the raisins-in-the-cake analogy, so resulting in inhomogeneous space. That's a gravitational field, with no causative matter. Simple.

What does the expansion of the universe have to do with my questions? Are you simply using your Pope Farsight powers to declare what the laws of the universe should be and forestall questions? Can you give an example of any scientist who uses the expansion of the universe to calculate galactic rotation curves?

How do you hope to overturn the hundreds of papers that actually use the available observations?

By simply pointing out that the energy of a gravitational field cause an additional component of gravity, and that the additional spatial stress-energy is not dark matter.

OK, so you've made a prediction: the energy of a gravitational field can cause an additional component of gravity exactly equal to the amount predicted by the dark matter hypothesis. So, how do you support this prediction that you have made about the exact calculation of the gravitational component that supposedly arises from the energy of the gravitational field?

I would suggest that you could easily show your work by:
a) picking any galaxy or galaxy cluster with rotation that as been established
b) calculating the energy of the gravitational field
c) showing the effect of that energy on the rotation of the chosen structure
d) showing that the rotation predicted by your theory matches the observed rotation

You have made a prediction of a specific mathematical result. Why should we take Pope Farsight's word that we will get the exact result?

Can you please demonstrate the appeal to time dilation in the work cited by newolder?

Yes. See the recent documentary featuring Stephen Hawking talking concerning time travel. Also see the Time Explained thread.

You are not talking about anything cited by newolder and you have clearly not done any demonstration. Can you please demonstrate the appeal to time dilation in the work cited by newolder?

What does this paper have to do with your use of Φ? It appears grossly inconsistent with your position, since this paper recovers the mathematics supporting the evidence for dark matter.

Read the paper. It supports my position, it does not support dark matter, and lest we forget: there is no evidence for dark matter, and general relativity tells us why you can't find it.

Again, what does this paper have to do with your theory? Looking at it, your theory only seems to be more wrong.

Heck, I'd be happy if he could do show the work relevant to the picture he chose for his discussion on gravitational lensing...

No, you wouldn't. I'm sorry ChildInAZoo. Dark matter is a busted flush. Get used to it. Now stop wasting my time with your clinging attempts to discredit and spoil the thread.

I would be happy to see the Nobel Prize winning work that you could do to overturn the results of the very work you cite. However, since you refuse to support your own specific predictions with anything but Papal fiat, I am unlikely to see any work from you.

I can't really see any significant difference between this thread and the following information: http://www.conservapedia.com/Dark_matter

[ChildInAZoo]

I'm not the 1 who thinks time is motion. Thanks for the paper – reading it now...

LOL again. Go ask Smolin what he thinks time is.

That's funny, since that was something Smolin addressed in the presentation that I just saw from him. He didn't say that time was motion.

Wait, here's a really interesting question: wht is the relationship between this

c = c0 (1 + Φ/c²)

and this

Φ is a symmetric linear operator which takes bivectors to bivectors and 2-forms to 2-forms

Aside from the use of the same symbol, these symbols aren't even used to represent the same kind of mathematical object! Farsight, how do you propose that we should relate these two things? Do you propose that everytime someone uses a symbol, that it always means the same thing?

[newolder]

Let's be specific. Those weren't questions.

Okay, then my question remains.

Right in front of you. There is no negative motion. What, you think you can slow slow and then keep slowing down until your motion goes negative? LOL.

Do you have a reading disorder? The equation does not read as, “... Light stops. Everything stops. And that's it.” because it sometimes reads c=-c0 and c0 is not 0. You seem to be struggling badly with symbols in general:

 Do you propose that everytime someone uses a symbol, that it always means the same thing?

Φuck no!

[Farsight]

Do you have a reading disorder? The equation does not read as, “... Light stops. Everything stops. And that's it.” because it sometimes reads c=-c0 and c0 is not 0.

LOL! You walked into the door again. How can there be a negative speed? Don't you get it yet!? When you reduce the speed of light to zero, you can't keep on reducing it so it goes negative.

You seem to be struggling badly with symbols in general:

 Do you propose that everytime someone uses a symbol, that it always means the same thing?

I'm not struggling. Of course a symbol doesn't always mean the same thing. But it does mean something real despite what you think. However your use of -c0 doesn't. It's a negative speed. Negative motion! Show me some! Oh yes, there it is, right next to your time machine.

Now read the paper properly, and take note of the gμv, the geometric formulation, the classical solution, the chiral spinors. the topological BF action. And take note of XENON100 is certain about its uncertainty, because this is the beginning of the end of dark matter.

[Farsight]

So, Farsight, in order to substantiate your claim, please confirm your prediction by
a) picking any galaxy or galaxy cluster with rotation that as been established
b) calculating the energy of the gravitational field
c) showing the effect of that energy on the rotation of the chosen structure
d) showing that the rotation predicted by your theory matches the observed rotation

LOL. Your pretence that these are "fair" and "direct" questions fools nobody.

It appeared to fool newolder, who specifically cites them as legitimate questions. Why are these not legitimate questions to ask of you? Are you simply declaring them to be invalid? Are you the Pope of gravity? Like most of your assertions, you offer nothing to back up your claims in this matter.

Nothing to back up my claims? I give scientific evidence, references to papers and Einstein, and the simple logic and explanation. Your can offer no counter-evidence or references or logic, hence your response is to offer insincerity and snide insinuations along with distraction demands in a vain attempt to confuse the issue and discredit the messenger. It doesn't work. Now get used to the fact that dark matter is finished. And so are we. Your dishonesty is such that I'm not entertaining your "conversation" any more.

[ChildInAZoo]

Nothing to back up my claims? I give scientific evidence, references to papers and Einstein, and the simple logic and explanation.

Except that your references are, as I pointed out about Minkowski, at best poor references and at worst simlple gross misunderstandings. When you are questioned about your interpretation of your citations, you refuse to actually produce evidence that your interpretation is correct. And when you make a specific prediction, you refuse to produce the details of that prediction. So you point at other people's work but you never actually provide your own evidence.

In this thread you've done another gross mistake of citation: you claim that a paper is an example of a quantization of a parameter you support, when the paper has nothing to do with that parameter. Yet you are deathly silent about the questions about that paper.

Your can offer no counter-evidence or references or logic, hence your response is to offer insincerity and snide insinuations along with distraction demands in a vain attempt to confuse the issue and discredit the messenger. It doesn't work. Now get used to the fact that dark matter is finished. And so are we. Your dishonesty is such that I'm not entertaining your "conversation" any more.

So, you offer an obvious prediction and when questioned about the details of that prediction, your response is to accuse other people of attacking you?

How can this not be about the Church of Farsight?

[newolder]

Farsight,
You choose to ignore my question. Heigh ho.

When you reduce the speed of light to zero, you can't keep on reducing it so it goes negative.

The equation gets harder to understand as Φ goes lower than -c2, is what I wrote earlier. Could it mean a photon would be reflected (and possibly twisted) in such a gravitational potential?

... the beginning of the end of dark matter.

The third term – a modification to standard gravitation – is a
Stephenson-Kilmister-Yang (SKY) term [19], related to a Gauss-Bonnet topological action.

What can you explain, in lay terms, about this topological dark matter candidate? It sounds interesting.

[Farsight]

Farsight, You choose to ignore my question. Heigh ho.

What question? I've just looked back through the thread, and I can't find it. Repeat your question and I'll attempt to answer it.

The equation gets harder to understand as Φ goes lower than -c2, is what I wrote earlier. Could it mean a photon would be reflected (and possibly twisted) in such a gravitational potential?

No. As the gravitational potential increases the coordinate speed of the photon reduces. Eventually it stops, and then everybody in the universe agrees that nothing else happens. This is the Weinberg "field interpretation". See The formation and growth of black holes. The author does side with the Misner/Thorne/Wheeler "geometrical interpretation", but see this bit:

Incidentally, I should probably qualify my dismissal of the "frozen star" interpretation, because there's a sense in which it's valid, or at least defensible. Remember that historically the two most common conceptual models for general relativity have been the "geometric interpretation" (as exemplified by Misner/Thorne/Wheeler's "Gravitation") and the "field interpretation" (as in Weinberg's "Gravitation and Cosmology"). These two views are operationally equivalent outside event horizons, but they tend to lead to different conceptions of the limit of gravitational collapse. According to the field interpretation, a clock runs increasingly slowly as it approaches the event horizon (due to the strength of the field), and the natural "limit" of this process is that the clock just asymptotically approaches "full stop" (i.e., running at a rate of zero) as it approaches the horizon. It continues to exist for the rest of time, but it's "frozen" due to the strength of the gravitational field. Within this conceptual framework there's nothing more to be said about the clock's existence. This leads to the "frozen star" conception of gravitational collapse.

What can you explain, in lay terms, about this topological dark matter candidate? It sounds interesting.

[/quote]Nothing, I'm afraid. I haven't heard of it before. But off the top of my head it sounds like the "bulge in space" I talk about when describing the photon as a lemon-like pulse of spacewarp zipping along at c. See Understanding electromagnetism and have a look at this brief discussion on topological charge. Think of space as a cubic l;attice. A photon is a bulge-like distortion in the lattice. Conduct pair production, and you've got two opposite "knots" or solitons that twist the surrounding lattice in opposite directions. Hence a fermion such as an electron causes torsion in the surrounding space.

[newolder]

What question? I've just looked back through the thread, and I can't find it.

It's a few posts back and you have already quoted it (without an answer) in one of your replies on this page - it's the collection of words terminated by a question mark.

No. As the gravitational potential increases the coordinate speed of the photon reduces. Eventually it stops, and then everybody in the universe agrees that nothing else happens. … snip wibble...

The equation you attribute to Einstein in your post yields negative values as Φ goes lower than -c2.

Nothing, I'm afraid. ...

Yep, that just about sums up your contribution to this topic. There's nothing here to be afraid of. Kthxbai.

[Farsight]

Run along then newolder, go play with your negative motion and your time machine.

[ChildInAZoo]

Run along then newolder, go play with your negative motion and your time machine.

As newolder pointed out, the negative motion came from your equation. You are the one who has to explain it. Or, like Einstein, you can reject it in favor of a better theory.

[Farsight]

No, it came from newolder's inference. A square carpet might have an area of sixteen square metres. We know that this carpet measures 4m by 4m. We also know that there are two solutions to √16, but that there are no carpets measuring -4m by -4m. The second solution is non-real, just like negative motion, just like black-hole singularities that only exist in a never-never-land beyond the end of time.

[ChildInAZoo]

OK, if you are going to make a recourse to a mathematical explanation in this case, you can use the proper mathematics to back up your claims about dark matter.

Question: Can you show us how your theory predicts the rotation curve for any observed galaxy?

[newolder]

No, it came from newolder's inference.

No, it came from the equation you posted.

For Φ >= -c2, “Einstein's equation” shows how a previously postulated 'constant' of nature varies across gravitational potentials.

Is where, in your post?

[Farsight]

Einstein wrote c = c0(1 + Φ/c²). He was saying the light goes slower in a region where the gravitational potential is lower, and c is less than c0. Then he talked about Huyghens and deflexion. Read the 1911 paper for yourself:

For measuring time at a place which, relatively to the origin of the co-ordinates, has the gravitation potential Φ, we must employ a clock which – when removed to the origin of co-ordinates – goes (1 + Φ/c²) times more slowly than the clock used for measuring time at the origin of co-ordinates. If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation

c = c0 (1 + Φ/c²) (3)

The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good according to this theory in a different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity.

4. Bending of Light-Rays in the Gravitational Field
FROM the proposition which has just been proved, that the velocity of light in the gravitational field is a function of the place, we may easily infer, by means of Huyghens's principle, that light-rays propagated across a gravitational field undergo deflexion. For let E be a wave front of a plane light-wave at the time t, and let P1 and P2 be two points in that plane at...

Read what he said for yourself instead of dreaming up a red-herring negative speed. If you go slower and slower and slower, you don't end up with a negative speed. You end up stopped.