# Solution to the Galaxy Rotation Problem, without Dark Matter

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

1. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
The hope of solving the issue is disappearing before my eyes. Scott I went back to the beginning where you hit the forum with the hypothesis, but really you have no idea how Gravitational time dilation would account for what can be measured.
Have you come any further on having an idea what a moving mass in a region of time dilation looks like? Can you measure its velocity? Has time and length changed or just time on its own? If you measure its velocity who's second do you use? Time there or time here?

3. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
I recently claimed that not only can Gravitational Time Dilation solve the Galaxy Rotation Problem, but can also do away with Dark Matter altogether by locating enough mass to agree with the Gravitational Lensing, such as observed around the Bullet Cluster.

There would be several starting points for solving both related galaxy questions, but all have flaws.

The most proper place mathematically, for clocking the stars in orbit around Andromeda would be to use a star that is under equal Time Dilation with our region. Locally, we experience minor fluctuations from one clock to another because these affect are quite small. The farther we propose to look into space the more we have to add to our overall, regional Time Dilation Clock, to view time properly in another potential region, and therefore our velocity calculations that will follow. We could guess at a region in Andromeda, maybe the same distance from the core as us, or even use a radius and velocity to mirror our region within our galaxy, but this will be only a guess as well. There are way too many stars near our target velocity between 250 km/s & 300 km/s. This has too many flaws.

We could start at the outer most visible star, and begin there by resolving the mass contained within that orbital sphere. We could say that that would be the entire mass of the Galaxy, and then we could chunk off ten percent sections of the overall radius and begin applying Time Dilation Calculations as they would then begin to apply to each successive region appropriately as we continue working inward toward the central mass. We would again solve the Galaxy Rotation Curve Problem, and its relationship to our overall picture of rotation, but this will actually show us far too much mass. Not because of our calculations as we divided the masses up properly with our corrections of Time Dilation as we went along, but because of our initial calculation. Our starting mass will be much larger than is the current overall known mass, and will be too large for our Gravitational Lensing Math. The reason is that we are Time Dilated from being located half way through the core of our galaxy, and so Velocity will be measured wrong to begin with. We could adjust for it in our initial mass, but again, we have no way of knowing yet, our own Clock’s benchmark to adjust for this. Our slower clock, will give us the idea that the outer most stars are going faster than they actually are, so the entire mass will exceed the Gravitational Lensing curves we observe of similar galaxies. The Dark Matter would go away very easily without adjusting for, and reducing the velocity properly with the corrected ‘over there’ clock. That would be wrong, only fun. This also has too many flaws.

The only place we can start is with the current estimated mass of the Black Hole at the center of Andromeda. We apply the Gravitational Time Dilation equation to correct the velocities successively in ten percent chunks or so, and correct the Galaxy Rotation Quiz without the Dark Matter, as Emmanuel Moulay has done here, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.2826.pdf. As I may have explained briefly before, we apply the ‘lessening’ affect of the Time Dilation, by using the equation for each region. The problem with this is that we were now able to resolve the Galaxy Question by rearranging the mass, and correcting the curve, but the weakness is evident. We will have added very little mass compared to what is needed for our current overall mass predictions of Dark Matter, so we still need it in this solution to compensate for the Lensing.

Here is the final math then to answer both questions. We started in the right place, but we have to resolve the central mass once we have applied our first Gravitational Time Dilation orbital correction. So, we take the initial published mass, apply the clock correction to the central blue stars orbiting Andromeda. Then, we resolve the new, more proper mass of the Black Hole. As we proceed now we will see that we have found a considerable amount of mass as each Time Dilation region will have grown by quite a lot, within each orbital sphere. Each time we add mass through our corrections, is adds more to each equation as we proceed, so there is a little compounded interest.

Though this is getting pretty close to correcting the rotation and finding a lot of mass along the way, it will still fall short I believe. Once we have solved the new time corrected mass, we forgot an important step, which will carry, again, throughout our galaxy adding more mass along the way, and probably enough for both questions.

Starting over: we used the published mass of the Black Hole, used the Time Dilation equation to fix our slow clock, corrected the speeds of the blue stars, then we fixed the mass by applying our new more proper velocity. Now we have to use the Gravity Time Dilation equation AGAIN, because we used the old mass in our first clock adjustment. We go back again to the middle and add the next adjustment to the mass and so on, until we see the adjustment wane beyond observable meaning. Maybe three times will get it done, because the adjustments will drop off very quickly, but five would not be out of the question. This is not an infinite loop to magically add mass over and over, but I realized this problem and figured out that it will solve quickly enough. It’s merely fine tuning. I believe it is the correct approach.

Now if you thought I was crazy before, that’s the nail in the coffin, no? I don’t see an alternative as a starting point, but will be happy to see this worked out properly. If there is anyone capable of solving the Gravitational Time Dilation Equation a few times, and the orbital math needed please help. Send a PM, or we can work on it here.

5. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
So what is the equation, is there an example of it somewhere? Calculating and incrementing it till some change happens is a macros type problem easily done. You have to have a formula and some starting values for all the variables (and constants) and know what you are going to change. (well you can vary all things and see the effect of the changes on the result, so you don't have to know too much. It becomes very educational. The fineness of the change is easily adjusted.
You need to write the formula out on an excel workbook and I'll soon convert it to a macro.

We can make it produce graphs of the results. So you quickly see what is happening and if it is doing what you want.

Messages:
290

8. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
First of all I was initially more concerned with the spectrum shift that goes along with GTD, and I’ve learned a lot of new things about our galaxies, the subject of Time Dilation, etc. I have improved my understanding of the competing models since my initial hypothesis. I had thought that this was one possible solution, called an educated guess, and I was educated enough to make that guess.

Did you read post#78 of mine?

I tried to answer some of those, but will try to be clearer. A moving mass in a region of greater Time Dilation will look exactly like it would without this phenomenon, only it will look slower, if viewed from my frame. No lengths, or geometry, or masses have changed, only that my clock will not be right for measuring time. Since time is the changing parameter to measure velocity (distance as constant) our velocity calculation is simply wrong, unless we know the right correction.

I can use the clock in that region, no matter the Dilation effect to measure time and velocity properly there, but only if I am actually there. If I can compare the clocks I can make the proper adjustment. I can also correct my time part of the equation to understand how to measure things like velocity, over there, but only if I know how it compares exactly to my clock.

I don’t know if that clarifies what I think we know about it at this point.

9. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
E-mail it when you are ready. I'll have time next week.

10. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Surely that is not so? For the reason we know there is time dilation is that the clocks are running slow, so if the clocks are slow the view of motion in that frame will look slow as well, for we are using our definition of distance on the motion of objects in the frame that is affected by the time dilation.

So I believe objects (stars) in the regions of time dilation will look to us as if they are going slow when we measure them from here. Where they are, is where they were at the time the light came from them, but allowing for that delay, if they do an orbit there, we will see them do an orbit here, but the perception of how long that orbit takes is different. Time dilation is different from length contraction in that there is no need to specify the direction. If time is dilated, distances in the direction of motion maybe contracted but are they?

I'm going to have to think this through a bit more but definitely velocity appears slowed (to a remote viewer) in time dilated (slowed) situations.

But I can see the problem for in the relative motion situation we say something like "a spaceship going past us at .866 c" that 0.866 c motion is not the one that is slowed, but any science experiments going on inside will appear slow. Like, if it was intended to roll the ball across the table at 10m/sec it would be measured to the outside observer just to be doing 5 m/sec. across the table even though it is measured at 10m/sec within the craft. If the craft is 10m wide it will that mean it will take 2 seconds our time for it to cross, but only 1 sec in the spaceship time? But of the dimensions of the spaceship, width is not affected by length contraction, so it will be going 5m/sec to us but 10m/sec to them.

Am I right? Does everyone agree with my logic here?

Last edited: Feb 28, 2013
11. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
It then gets trickier if the experiment in the ship involves orbital motion. Say, if the mass was on a 5m string and it orbits a central point at 10m/sec in the rocket frame. How long will it take to make a rotation or orbit? When the mass is aligned between the central point to the nose of the rocket in the ship, a radio signal is sent. Is the frequency of this signal the same being received by a distant observer (allowing for the time signal takes to travel from A to B)?
Now since we are dealing with Gravitational time dilation the "rocket ship" is not get further and further away from us so the time light (signal) takes to travel should not be increasing.
So the period of the orbit is?

Last edited: Feb 28, 2013
12. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
Both clocks would be in the same frame within the context of SR, but not within the context of GR.

In most cases the lab can be treated as flat space-time and consistent with SR. That is largely due to the scale of measurements being made. Any time the clocks used are sensitive enough that a change in their location within a gravitational field can affect their synchronization.., GTD.., their respective frames of reference can no longer be assumed to be inertial and confined to the conditions of SR. They must then be treated as essentially accelerated frames of reference.., I.E. the difference intheir location within the gravitational field is equivalent to each experiencing a different rate of acceleration, via the equivalence principle.

I was not arguing that GTD does not exist or that we cannot measure it. I was only pointing out that to do so requires information from more than one frame of reference.

The optical clocks used were and are accurate enough that even a change in height of one meter cannot be thought of as in the same frame of reference, even where they can be simultaneously observed. The observer may be essentially in one frame of reference, but he/she is observing the affects that two separate gravitational frames of reference have on initially synchronized and identical clocks.

13. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
o\
OK I needed that to be explained to me. Thank you Only Me. Could you tell me if I have the other logic (about velocity) correct or not?
For there doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion occurring here, and before I attempt to write the macros etc I need a bit more understanding of what is happening.

14. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
We only need the two equations. The GTD, and then we will be solving for the mass using the radius of each orbit, the orbital period (km/s), then apply the gravitational constant. For Special Relativistic frame, all objects will be considered comoving objects. Maybe one day, but many of the SR Time Dilation effects will even cancel out depending on which side of the galaxy we measure, compared to our 220 km/s, toward or away from Andromeda, plus our other proper motions etc.

We will have made some major corrections, and as explained by Onlyme, the good part about GTD, is that viewed from our frame, will not affect the outcome.

15. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
I can write out the mass equation now, and the difficulty with checking my results is that I'm resolving for kg, then coverting this to solar masses is too far out. We dont need that exactly, yet I was just trying to check my math. I'm using 5.271 ly R, converted to meters, then 1,000,000 m/s velocity. The answer should be 140 miloion Solar masses. I'll figure it out today how to include all the converstions in units in the macro for you to write. So that we have the right units to populate our parameters for the GTD equation.

16. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Once I have written the macro and all the units are checked, and all the constants are entered and assigned a variable, we won't have to worry about the figures or the size of them anymore. Then we can loop the macro changing one parameter at a time and really see and feel what the time dilation equations are doing. So don't panic but look up some good references and see if you can get the radius of Andromeda and it total mass including the so called Dark Matter, those sort of basic figures.
There are definitely these MACHOS in the galaxies, so we won't be able to dismiss the DM entirely. Even what I proposed could be considered as a form of DM but one that hasn't been thought of yet, but all in the center and could be causing these GTD effects. The extra "lost"mass will have to be in the right place!
A YouTube I watched yesterday even suggested some are wondering if the Gravitational Constant stays constant!!!!
[I didn't record who it was now sorry - will I see it in History??? No - a different computer. (operating over 3 computers for the project)]
Another series that I have found educational is the ones by "PhysicistMichael"
"General Relativity: 2b - Equivalence Principle"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGWIoSlCtEU by "PhysicistMichael" He seems to given a really understandable explanation of the equivalence principle.

It is going to be one enormous problem convincing anyone but first of all we have to see if we can see it ourselves. Even to agree between ourselves will be hard.
But I am looking forward to writing a macros again ....
Keep all the units in metric unit please. , meters, kilograms, seconds, etc.

Last edited: Feb 28, 2013
17. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
I don't believe at present I can shed any insight on your question. I have for sometime now only been skimming the discussion and forum generally as a distraction, from other both trivial and nontrivial activities and obligations. I do not have any real wholistic picture of the conversation.

Very generally and largely going back to the thread title, I do not believe that there is any solution which would not involve dark matter. In part because the galaxy rotation issue is not the only observation supporting the existence of dark matter. There is also otherwise unexplained gravitational lensing...

The question of definning exactly what dark matter is, is itself significant. Generally one must approach the question not by assuming any previously presented definition or description.., and fall back on the general statement that dark matter represents an unknown "something" that gravitationally acts very much like the matter or mass we have become familiar with.

It may very well be that there is some sort of non radiating or quantum mass, currently unknown, or it could be as simple as space itself playing a dynamic part in what we observe from our small corner of the universe. All we can say with certainty is that what we "see" does not appear to match what our local experience of gravitation and orbital mechanics suggests.

18. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
When I think about the conservation of energy between the two frames, I believe that the calculation of the Kinetic energy will be different. I was just watch at YT about conservation of Energy in a pendulum, and thought maybe if the energy doesn't balance the remainder is tied up in form of potential energy.

19. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Sorry about that, I had come to the limit of my ability to fight sleep, but now I have awoken with a new vigour to understand what this "potential energy state" is.
It obviously is known about but it is my understanding of the problem that has jumped up a level. I was thinking about the words "equivalence principle", and how the gravitational pull is equivalent to a constant upward acceleration. It is equivalent but it is not the same. So in a Gravitational time dilation situation there is going to be an equivalent situation too, but what do you call it?
In a region with a gravitational strength causing severe time dilation such that time has slowed to half rate, that same time dilation occurs when matter moves at a "relative velocity" of 0.866 c. But when you look at the "relativistic mass" of that object moving at that speed, there has been more energy applied to that object than is accounted for by its kinetic energy when calculated by 1/2mV^2. But they don't like saying its mass has increased either ("relativistic mass" is old fashioned), but if you try to slow that object down that "hidden kinetic energy" is contained in a type of "hidden motion", like that hidden acceleration in the "equivalence principle" which is not contained in its mass or velocity but is still there, so I'm thinking there is a word for this "extra potential" and I think it might be called "four momentum", is that right?
So imagine if by the "equivalence principle" gravity is explained as "hidden acceleration", by similar reasoning, there is "relative motion" and a "hidden motion", and there is "relative acceleration" and "hidden acceleration". Is this a fair conclusion: The "hidden acceleration" is equivalent to gravity and "hidden motion" is (relationship? something? equivalent to?) to relative motion hidden within time dilation?

20. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
I believe hidden would be a fair, but it is, I think, hidden only by our interpretation of motion from our frame. It is again, only from our view that energy seems to have been lost in the other frame. In actuality, nothing lost and nothing gained.

21. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
New question:

Though I am confident that the method I have been describing, will find much of our mass, and will solve the Galaxy Rotation Problem, I don’t think our velocities will ever match the usually described, expected, curve like the one in the last video I posted. Here is what is wrong with it in the first place. See if you all agree.

The expected rotation curve and the drop off velocity we are expecting by that simplistic chart does not at all take into account the mass that is added to each orbital sphere as we increase our radial distance from the center of the Black Hole. The expected curve we keep referring to would be correct in a planetary system, where 99.85% of the mass in the entire system is within the radius of the very first sphere, like the Sun. Why would we expect to see this curve in a Galaxy, where mass distribution is clearly much more widely dispersed throughout? We shouldn’t really, is my point. The mass in our chart should increase as we proceed radially. Though it will drop of most drastically near the center of our system, we still have to increase the mass with each orbit to resolves this, the correct curve will include the mass contained within each orbit.

The “expected” curve we are trying to resolve is too simplistic, and better for describing planetary systems, not galaxies. So, we will find some mass by adjusting for Time Dilation, we will correct some of this galaxy rotation curve, but some of the curve will simply be correct, as it reflects the cumulative mass as we proceed radially.

Back to work some math magic.
Math is hard 

22. ### Janus58Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,158
But the visible mass of the galaxy is not evenly dispersed. You have a dense central bulge and then the less densely populated disk. Once you get far enough out to be clear of the bulge, the extra mass added as you move further out is not very significant. Sure, it flattens the curve out a little bit, but not nearly enough to account for what we measure. The expected curve does take into account all the visible mass distribution of the galaxy.

23. ### Scott MyersNewbieRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
290
Very well, but the expected curve, as is very simply demonstrated then is not the curve we are actually expecting correct? The curve will not be so similarv to planetary expected curves correct?