# Solution to the Galaxy Rotation Problem, without Dark Matter

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Scott Myers, Feb 2, 2013.

1. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
The paper does not convince me, but I am glad that someone was able to get this through the peer review process for publishing. As I said before, the paper only shows that it is a possible solution, not that it is the best one. I would rather it go farther into this territory of applying the Gravitational Time Dilation Phenomenon to some other issues with our current model, and give it a bit more teeth.

Last edited: Feb 24, 2013

3. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Well I was wanting to know what time dilation does to speed of the object. I am imagining 100 kilometre road and along that road the gravitational time dilation increases from the start to the end. If something starts off at 100 km/hr how long will it take to complete the journey. Does it slowdown as viewed by a distant observer as the time dilates?

Like if these stars appear to us to be going 200 km/sec if they are in a region of severe time dilation are they really going 3 times that speed in their own frame (as per the example in the paper) i.e. 600 km/sec for a second there is 3 times as long as a second here?

5. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
Let’s put a driver in a car and tell him to drive 100 km/h around a medium sized planet. Let’s call that Earth. The driver reads his speedometer, or can use a stop watch and mile markers on the road to determine his speed distance over time. All instruments agree how far he has travelled within that hour, two hours etc.

Now let’s put a driver in a car on a super dense planet and tell her to drive 100 km/h around her planet. She gets up to speed using her speedometer, the clock on her dashboard, or a mechanical watch, to see that, yes, all observations agree she has covered 100 km, over each hour used.

Let’s say that out Time Dilation equation has given us a 25% differential from one local frame to the other. Let’s give each of them light speed radios, and have them check in with each other’s progress. The driver on Earth marks his time at exactly one hour into his experiment. The driver on our supermassive planet replies that she has travelled only 75 miles, and she has 15 minutes left on the clock to reach her first one hour epoch.

Once she has reached her first mark she radios back to the guy on Earth, from exactly one hour into her journey and 1oo km covered. The driver on Earth reports back to her that he has already reached 125 km, and is now one hour and 15 minutes into his journey at the same mark.

The driver on Earth observes his time is passing faster by 25%, the driver on our supermassive planet agrees that her time is passing 25% slower, when compared to each other’s relative progress.

How do we then apply this to our physical observations and orbital periods for doing math? This is obviously where it gets a bit strange. If I am trying to do proper physical calculations from Earth, I must first account for the known, calculated, change in time from one Gravitational Well toward another.

Let’s make the car on our supermassive planet then, travel at 10,000 km/h, in a stable tangential orbit, and let’s say that 10,000 km is also the distance we need to travel to complete one orbit. Gravity then is also exerting an equal force, we know, of 10,000 km/h, expressed as velocity acting on our orbiting space-car. Later on, the nice lady in the car then assures us, she has met the requirements to attain the proper orbit at this speed. Her speedometer, digital clock, mechanical clock, and physical planetary orbital period clock all agree she is traveling at exactly 10,000 km/h. Once she has made one trip around she radios back to us on Earth that she has completed her orbit at 10,000 km/h, and has traveled exactly 10,000 km.

And yet, we have been watching her orbit from Earth and observe that she has covered the 10,000 miles indeed, but it took her one hour and 15 minutes on our clock, to complete her trip. We measure her velocity then as 8,000km/h. The distance she has covered overall has not changed, only the time it took her to make the trip. If we are near enough to measure the geometry of her trip, we measure the same 10,000 mile journey, but it has taken us 75 minutes to see her finish her trip. The radius of the planet, geometrically has also not changed as we observe, only the time used in getting there.

What if we then go on without her information, without her radio transmission, and without applying this known phenomenon of Time Dilation? What would this do to our math? We would deduce the same geometry, radius of orbit, and agree that the space-car is in a stable orbit at 8,000 km/h, and that the tangential Gravitational force exerted to keep this stable orbit was 8,000 km/h. We would then calculate a mass by using this 8,000 km/h measurement, but we would be wrong. We would be using the force of gravity, by using a bogus velocity, giving us a much lighter planet.

Once we determine to agree with the Time Dilation that is happening near an object such as a supermassive black hole, we have then found the ‘missing’ mass within a spiral galaxy. We do not need an observer to radio us back what is happening there. We already know what is happening, and exactly what she would tell us, because we know the math. We have only to apply it.

Being that mass is invariant and holding Gravity as constant, the only thing we can correct is our improperly calculated velocity near the center of such supermassive objects, by adjusting the only variant we know to be observed and true to be a variant, we can solve for the proper mass, instead of the lighter mass we think agrees with orbital dynamics, by applying the proper Gravitational Time Dilation effects on the observed time we used to calculate velocity.

7. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
I'll have to go over that more than once to get the complete picture, (I'm a bit slow).
I think you skipped through the bit showing there is extra mass too fast. How did you prove that?

8. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
Simply because we are using improper velocities to determine central mass. The velocities of the central blue stars around Andromeda's black hole, for instance, are used to determine the mass of everything within that sphere. The velocities are much greater than we are observing, so our geometry, being correct, ie, distance from the center of the mass being correct, our calculation of mass by using the velocity (orbital period) is wrong. They are seeming to move slower than they actually are within their local time dilation.

Last edited: Feb 24, 2013
9. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
I understand that to calculate rotational speeds they compare the force of gravity to the centripetal force. And certain factors cancel out but the gravitational constant doesn't.
And the Gravitational constant has the units of time in it, so what are the seconds in the "gravitational constant = 6.67398 × 10-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2" Are they also the time dilated seconds? So for one place to another in Gravitational time dilation is the gravitational constant a constant?

10. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
The brief Answer is I think, no. The expression of time in the equation is only an aid in expressing gravitational force as velocity I think. At the local planetary scale we learned that this Gravitational Constant holds true, and so it follows that in each proper local time the constant will still hold true. We have every reason to believe it works just as well here as it does there.

I would rather, I think, use something observed, proven in a lab, and with our GPS calculations to solve for this, the galaxy Rotation Problem that is. If we adjust for this rotation problem by modifying gravity, we have found no mass within the Baryons, even though it works mathematically for this and some other questions. If we modify Gravity, we have still ignored this known phenomenon that is part of GR. If we understand, and compensate for, Time Dilation properly we will have found enough mass to solve the Bullet Cluster Lensing question perhaps, while changing nothing along the way, which is not already known and consistently used in Physical Science.

11. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
I think we have a long way to go to master the maths of this situation. If there is a range of time rates there must be a range of "G" as well or at least it may need to be adjusted for the ratio of the time rates. I saw how the two can be related on the Wikipedia page on Gravitational time dilation.
I don't know La Tex sorry. That could be the formula to adjust the times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

12. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
A clock in a circular orbit, however, will also be under Special Relativity and Kinematic Time Dilation as well, but is quite small considering orbits within planetary systems, and even Galaxies, compared to the clock adjustments needed so solve for Gravitational Time Dilation.

The most important exerpt from the WIKI article is this: "Gravitational time dilation was first described by Albert Einstein in 1907 as a consequence of special relativity in accelerated frames of reference. In general relativity, it is considered to be a difference in the passage of proper time at different positions as described by a metric tensor of spacetime. The existence of gravitational time dilation was first confirmed directly by the Pound–Rebka experiment."

13. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
There doesn't seem to be any good YouTube videos covering Gravitational time dilation. Do you know any?
So far "Relativity 10a - uniform gravity/acceleration I" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1y36UOqH44
seems educational.

Last edited: Feb 25, 2013
14. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Gravitational time dilation is evidenced by clocks ticking faster the higher up you go, so the higher the gravitational potential the faster the clock ticks. If it is measured by a traditional light clock the light must be bouncing faster than it does in a lower gravitational potential. Which in some ways makes it sound as if light travels at different speeds in different gravitational potentials (but this is something I have to clear up) for there is no motion (relative velocity) to speak of just an increase in height. But what I was looking at was the connection to gravitational potential (GP) and GP Energy. Lower gravitational potential is like lower to the gravity source, so in a higher gravitational potential some of the negative gravitational potential energy (GPE) has been paid back by the action of raising it up, so paying back the GPE is like speeding up time, in other words, the object lifted physically slows down for it can't travel so far in any given time interval. For example for the same mechanical energy, if initially the velocity is 10m/sec, then if the duration of a second (time interval) is shortened (time faster) it would be only able to achieve <10m/sec. That is in its own frame but looking from afar I don't know if you could see this reduction in velocity.

I might have this a little mixed up but any input would be welcome.

Last edited: Feb 26, 2013
15. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Someone asked me, off thread "If we double the mass of an object, we quadruple the effects of Gravity, basically is that correct?" Well I think Gravity is proportional to mass. Double mass double gravity, quadruple mass quadruple gravity. Another way to get a quadruple effect is you have to halve the radius (r term) then you quadruple gravity.

16. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
This Gravitational time dilation (GDT) is quite tricky but it can at least be measured.
this blogger "Straight Dope" describes it in an easy way "Is higher faster? Does time pass more quickly when gravity is reduced?"

Only thing I was wondering is does length contraction negate GTD? No. because length contraction can NOT be measured in the frame where it is occurring but GTD can. So they don't cancel.

17. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
This especially, I agree with. The geometry, mass, radius, and speed of light from a third observer, cannot change based on frame of reference; while observing another local frame. Only time as we measure from our frame, can be corrected for. Velocity is distance overtime. The distance cannot change, only the time factor of this very first of all measurements related to our initial question. Light waves may be forced to shift red, or blue, but the speed of the photon cannot change. The wavelength shift is an artifact of this time change, while keeping the law in place. It is simply forced to do something, except slow down, or speed up.

18. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
Double the mass, double the gravity is not true. It is not directly proportional, it is exponentially proportinal. Double the mass quadruple the gravity is closer to reality. Though that is simplistic, if we increase the mass, we exponentially increase the force, so it is not double the mass double the effect. It is more like double the mass quadruple the gravity, or Gravitational Time Dilation. This stuff (the cosmos) only works because if I double the mass I quadruple the force of gravity.

19. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
Wow. Give me a few hours on this one.I understand what you are after, but don't know the fit yet. You find it very important to conserve energy, which led you to your original thesis on a Variable Gravity. I will tackle this if I am able in the AM.

Good night for now.

20. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
You would see this reduction in velocity, and should account for in your math, but only if you trust the lady in the space-car’s reports, or Einstein.

I will be reviewing this in the morning.
This was a good post, no doubt.

21. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
"Rotation in Space - Professor Carolin Crawford" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXC3xGZWo_M is an amazing lecture if you have the time.

It is emphasized that in the galaxies and toward a black hole things have to slow down (lose angular momentum) or they can't fall in.

From my study it appeared to me that the gravitational radiation allows objects to shed momentum but no where enough to fall at the rate they are. I was looking for another possible mechanism. Dark matter is the solution but is it real or can some other mechanism account for it. How does GTD take the angular momentum out of the stars as they fall inward?

Last edited: Feb 26, 2013
22. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
If we had an object that has a certain amount of kinetic energy and somehow it was able to go from one time zone to another, and in the time zone the time was 100% in Zone 1 and 50% in Zone 2 (Time Ticks were twice as fast or the duration of the second was only 50% of the original in Zone 2).

The object can't create or destroy energy and has to conserve momentum, what happens to the velocity as it goes through the transition of the time zones, either way?
I find it hard to imagine how this could happen in isolation. To get a time dilation of 200% (Zone 2 to zone 1) an object would have to accelerate to 0.866 the speed of light. Obviously it would have a lot more kinetic energy. so it can't be done that way.
In the case of a galaxies as the stars fall in toward the black hole they are maintaining the same speed, their kinetic energy is staying the same, their mass is staying the same, and yet they are moving from one time zone to another, so how do they do it?

There is normally a rise in orbital speed as the orbiting object get closer to the central body, but this isn't the case with the galaxy.

23. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,892
Huh? What could possible give you that idea? You realize this is very easy to determine. F= ma, so doubling the mass in the constant acceleration of gravity will only double the force. If I take a one KG mass and weigh it on a scale it will indicate a 2.2 lb force. If I place 2 one KG masses on the scale I will get a 4.4 lb force not an 8.8 lb force.

OK?