A theory of three dimensional spacetime

[Uclock]

BenTheMan

Now I get to defend string theory.

Yes, it does need defending!

There is no reason NOT to expect a non-perturbative formulation of string theory, and if you actually studied the problem instead of read Lee Smolin (or Peter Woit's) book, you'd know that.

Ah yes, good old Lee Smolin. I must admit I am aware of his views but I have never read his book. The study of string theory is too abstract for my liking and I believe that all of this Universe can be described using simple dynamic geometry.

The stronger claim that you're theory is background independant is striking. Of course it's background independant...so is GR. But what your theory doesn't do is predict the dimension of space-time, the appearance of non-Abelian symmetries, or chiral fermions. All of which one gets "for free" from string theory.

How on Earth can you say GR is background independent? Spacetime is treated as a metric which is a background on which the math is placed, it is hardly background independent.
For someone who is yet to read my theory of spacetime you appear to be making claims that are obviously not true. My theory does predict the three dimensions of space and the flow of time which is something GR cannot do. As I have stated many times, I do not know what three dimensional spacetime may predict as far as all the particles that make up our Universe because I have yet to study the micro world with this concept of three dimensional spacetime which I can’t do with the meagre facilities I have available to me.

Number of people who think "True Relativity is right"?
Number of people who think String Theory is right?

Should we start a poll?

As TR has not yet been studied by the mainstream don’t you think that poll would be a little unfair?

My hope of course is that GP’B will throw a wobbly into mainstream physics by showing a greater value for frame dragging than expected by GR but even then I think they may try to save GR by adding yet another ‘bolt on’ to account for the unexpected results.

The fact that the W and Z bosons have mass is proof that the Higgs exists. There is no other gauge invariant way to add mass terms for particles in the standard model.

I don’t doubt that. But if the Higgs is not found by the LHC then the standard model is in real trouble. If the view of spacetime is wrong then it will follow that the standard model will never incorporate gravity and in itself may have to been rewritten.
IMHO physics has backed itself into a corner because of its religious like attitude to Einstein’s relativity and as our ability to do experimentation increases then physics may be left floundering around in the dark scratching for a theory to explain the results of these experiments. This has already happened in the case of R.T. Cahill of Flinders University in Australia who has experimental evidence of the inflow of space in towards the Sun which cannot be explained using GR.

So, not only have you completely thrown out general relativity, you are now attempting to throw out all of particle physics, too.

Next stop: Evolution.

I am not trying to throw out anything. I am trying to show that Einstein’s view of the Universe is not right. If that has an impact on particle physics then so be it. Because TR is so radical it will not slip easily into particle physics but may turn up many surprises along the way but without the resources it is impossible to say how it will affect all other aspects of physics.
As far as evolution is concerned I think I will leave that to Darwin.

You have put this on the Internet because you cannot publish it anywhere else. "People with open minds" translates to "people who don't know what is horseshit and what isn't".

OOOWWW aren’t we getting a little hot under the collar? I have never tried to publish TR anywhere else other than the internet nor do I think the mainstream will accept such a radical theory of spacetime.
The point of the internet is that the establishment no longer has complete control which means alternative concepts can be discussed. Professionals do not like amateurs invading their territory but some amateurs in the past have helped advance physics and with the aid of the internet they may do so in the present and the future, we will have to wait and see.

The physics of this Universe belongs to all of us and not just the elite.

Why is not using Newton's constant a virtue?

Name me one working theory of gravity that does not use Newton’s gravitational constant? All other theories that I am aware of use ‘G’.

Newton can explain Newton's laws in the confines of the Solar System. Einstein can explain Newton's laws in the confines of the Solar System. We already know how to do classical mechanics and general relativity. And general relativity tells us that, however many dimensions we have, they all have to be treated equally.

What we have is not good enough. We only know there are three dimensions of space and we know we experience a flow of time but that in itself does not mean time should be treated as a separate dimension. Anything after that is just conjecture.
If GR cannot explain such a simple thing as inertia then it has a major problem along with the minor ones such as the bolt on of dark matter and the lack of evidence of gravitational radiation and the fact it breaks down at the extremes of this Universe.

This, of course, is the beauty of the internet. I can show you volumes of evidence for GR, but you can selectively ignore it because "my theory hasn't been tested".

I do realise GR has been quite successful over the last hundred years and Einstein would quite rightly be proud of GR’s success but IMHO it is beginning to crack, a crack that appears when Fritz Zwicky found more mass was needed to explain observations.
I don’t ignore anything but I do question everything and it’s a pity mainstream physicists do not do the same.

Just try not to convince anyone else who might vote, and don't raise any childeren.

Too late, they just seem to keep on multiplying so Christmas is getting very expensive. I must try and find out what’s causing it!

Stay cool,

Tony


____________________________
This is the theory of True Relativity

____________________________________
Time dilation inside and outside gravity fields

____________________
Article on True Relativity

 

[BenTheMan]

The study of string theory is too abstract for my liking and I believe that all of this Universe can be described using simple dynamic geometry.

This, I think, is the idea behind Smolin's approach to QG.

How on Earth can you say GR is background independent? Spacetime is treated as a metric which is a background on which the math is placed, it is hardly background independent.

The same way that people who have studied the problem for generations can. GR is background independant. GR is the definition of background independant.


You don't have to read much of this paper, just the first scentence: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0603/0603087.pdf

It is a widely shared opinion that the most outstanding and characteristic feature of General Relativity is its manifest background independence.

Any doubts I had about you not knowing what you were talking about (which were, mind you, few) are long gone.

The point of the internet is that the establishment no longer has complete control which means alternative concepts can be discussed.

And now the Man is keeping you down.

Good luck in your quest to destroy physics

 

[Uclock]

BenTheMan

“The study of string theory is too abstract for my liking and I believe that all of this Universe can be described using simple dynamic geometry.”

This, I think, is the idea behind Smolin's approach to QG.

Quite possibly. Smolin may have his own reasons for thinking string theory may be a long road to nowhere but deep down I feel all the physics of this Universe must be simple and basic. Everyone has their own view of reality and the more complexion built into that reality the further away from the true physics we move.

“How on Earth can you say GR is background independent? Spacetime is treated as a metric which is a background on which the math is placed, it is hardly background independent.”

The same way that people who have studied the problem for generations can. GR is background independant. GR is the definition of background independant.

Thanks for pointing out the paper but as the first line in the paper points out; “It is a widely shared opinion that the most outstanding and characteristic feature of General Relativity is its manifest background independence.”
This is just an opinion that GR is background independent yet the use of the manifold logically says otherwise. The paper is taking James Anderson’s notion of absolute structure and equating this with background independence so where is this absolute structure coming from?
The dimensions must be being produced from somewhere because they have not always been there.
We are able to move in three dimensions of space so these dimensions must have existed only since the BB. There is no absolute structure but the use of the manifold is a background.
According to the paper, background independence stands for the fact that it contains no non-dynamical background fields whatsoever but logically at the end of the day the use of the manifold is a background.

“Originally Posted by Real Scientist
It is a widely shared opinion that the most outstanding and characteristic feature of General Relativity is its manifest background independence.”

Any doubts I had about you not knowing what you were talking about (which were, mind you, few) are long gone.

I have addressed that above. You stick with the mainstream and question nothing because its ‘nice’ to belong to a group, to feel part of something, most people do. I see so much that is not logical about physics and I will carry on challenging it until the mainstream begins to address the real physical phenomenon’s that we all experience everyday.

“The point of the internet is that the establishment no longer has complete control which means alternative concepts can be discussed.”

And now the Man is keeping you down.

Hardly. I note how you accuse me of ignoring the evidence in favour of GR but you have not yet addressed the experimental evidence for the inflow of space in towards the Sun found by Cahill. You and the mainstream physicists are very adept at avoiding awkward questions when it suites you so I will ask you to address the evidence found by Cahill in terms of GR if you can?

Good luck in your quest to destroy physics

I am not setting out to destroy physics. I am on the other hand setting out to find the truth about the real physics of this Universe. The mainstream may not like it but to be honest I don’t give a dam. I may not be on the right path but being able to model gravity and the extremes of this Universe tells me I might just be onto something.

By the way you also failed to answer this question; Name me one working theory of gravity that does not use Newton’s gravitational constant?

As someone who likes to think he is well in with the mainstream you should not find it too difficult.

Tony

____________________________
This is the theory of True Relativity

____________________________________
Time dilation inside and outside gravity fields

____________________
Article on True Relativity

 

[BenTheMan]

This is just an opinion that GR is background independent yet the use of the manifold logically says otherwise.

But GR is not defined in terms of a single manifold. You can use any manifold you want. That's what it MEANS to be background independant.

And are you proposing that you have studied the problem in more detail than the author of the paper?

so where is this absolute structure coming from?

You put them in by hand. As, I'm sure, you do. In other words, I am very doubtful that you solve one equation and get out our universe.

 

[Singularity]

.... it also cannot explain the experimental evidence of the inflow of space in towards the Sun as detected by Flinders University in Australia

....

Tony

(offtopic)

Please tell me briefly about this and what to find on internet about it.

 

[Uclock]

BenTheMan

“This is just an opinion that GR is background independent yet the use of the manifold logically says otherwise.”

But GR is not defined in terms of a single manifold. You can use any manifold you want. That's what it MEANS to be background independant.

The point I am trying to make is, yes you can use any manifold but the use of a manifold means GR requires a kind of scaffolding on which to place the equations. The term background independent means that it is not subject to a particular manifold and therefore physicists think the term background independent is justified but is it really?

And are you proposing that you have studied the problem in more detail than the author of the paper?

No, what I am proposing is looking at spacetime in a completely different way, one that has never been thought of before.

“so where is this absolute structure coming from?”

You put them in by hand. As, I'm sure, you do. In other words, I am very doubtful that you solve one equation and get out our universe.

That’s funny because I used only one TR equation alongside the ideal gas law to model the events leading up to the Big Bang, the event of the Big Bang itself and the following expansion of the Universe.

I do not put anything in by hand other than the TR equations themselves. The three dimensions of space are generated by these equations as time flows and they require no manifold to describe spacetime or gravity.

Do you have access to a math program of some sort?

If you do I will email you a snapshot of the math program I use to model the Sun’s gravitational field and then you can build your own TR program which should only take 20 minutes at most then you can see for yourself that TR requires no background of any sort to model gravity. All I use is a comparison spacetime field alongside the spacetime field of the Sun which is explained in my paper.

You still have not answered my questions so I will repeat them.

1. Name me one working theory of gravity that does not use Newton’s gravitational constant?
2. I will ask you to address the evidence found by Cahill in terms of GR if you can?

Tony

____________________________
This is the theory of True Relativity

____________________________________
Time dilation inside and outside gravity fields

____________________
Article on True Relativity

 

[Uclock]

Singularity

“Originally Posted by Uclock
.... it also cannot explain the experimental evidence of the inflow of space in towards the Sun as detected by Flinders University in Australia”
(offtopic)

Please tell me briefly about this and what to find on internet about it.

Ok, R. T. Cahill of Flinders University in Austria is investigating absolute motion and has done relatively recent experiments to find out if there really is some kind of aether in which the Earth moves through emulating the experiments of Michelson-Morley, Miller, Dewitte and Torr-Kolen etc., He also revisited the original data of these earlier experiments and has come to the conclusion that there is an inflow of space that is moving in towards the Sun. He states that this movement is turbulent and originally this turbulence was put down as ‘equipment noise’ which he says is not entirely true.
I do not agree with his interpretation of the evidence but the evidence itself does have an explanation in True Relativity but not in Einstein’s GR. Most mainstream physicists seem to think he is well outside of their mainstream views but as the evidence is pointing to something they cannot explain they tend to avoid discussing it.
He is using a type of physics he calls ‘process physics’ and the site where these papers can be found is;

Process physics


Tony

____________________________
This is the theory of True Relativity

____________________________________
Time dilation inside and outside gravity fields

____________________
Article on True Relativity

 

[BenTheMan]

The point I am trying to make is, yes you can use any manifold but the use of a manifold means GR requires a kind of scaffolding on which to place the equations. The term background independent means that it is not subject to a particular manifold and therefore physicists think the term background independent is justified but is it really?

But GR works on any pseudo-Riemannian manifold---in this sense it is background independant. Your theory of "three dimensional space time" requires that you sepcify "three dimensions". "Three dimensions" is a property of a manifold, therefore you have specified a manifold.

From your second sentence it is clear that you and I are working from the same definition of background independance. What is not clear is that you understand that definition.

That’s funny because I used only one TR equation alongside the ideal gas law to model the events leading up to the Big Bang, the event of the Big Bang itself and the following expansion of the Universe.

But you specified three dimensions. One can get the same conclusions from GR. Specify de Sitter space. Use Einstein's equations. The rest follows.

1. Name me one working theory of gravity that does not use Newton’s gravitational constant?
2. I will ask you to address the evidence found by Cahill in terms of GR if you can?

The first quesiton is irrelevant. Gravity is a force, therefore there should be some constant which describes the coupling of gravity to matter---i.e. the strength. Newton's constant is the constant that describes the strength of the gravitational interraction. If your theory doesn't have such a constant, then it is worthless, as you cannot predict the strength of Gravitational interaction. I ask you---what is the strength of the gravitational interaction?

What do you mean address it?

 

[Xelios]

I'm not a physicist, but I've read through the theory and article and I think it's an interesting idea. At the least it deserves to be tested. I will agree with Ben that there are problems it can't account for right off the bat, but this theory is talking about reshaping a huge portion of modern physics. I think it would be premature to write it off because an aspect of modern physics does not agree with it.

I've done a lot of casual reading in physics, and while I'm by no means an expert in the subject it does seem like there's an awful lot of confusion these days. If we're ready to posit the existance of things like invisible dark matter and 11 dimensional spacetime we could at least consider a theory like this one enough to perform the experiments it mentions. If those experiments produce the results expected in "True Relativity" that's at least an indication that the theory deserves a good look, if they don't, well, we can all go back to positing increasingly complicated scenarios to deal with the problems modern physics isn't explaining very well.

 

[BenTheMan]

I will agree with Ben that there are problems it can't account for right off the bat, but this theory is talking about reshaping a huge portion of modern physics. I think it would be premature to write it off because an aspect of modern physics does not agree with it.

The idea of Lorentz Invariance (i.e. that time should be treated as a dimension) is such an integral part of modern physics that to abandon it would mean reformulating 100 years of work. When I say that this idea is not right, I mean that every experiment that we do which gives us correct results (i.e. the theory matches the experiment) is a test of this idea. And there is absolutely no reason to expect that time is not a dimension.

If we're ready to posit the existance of things like invisible dark matter and 11 dimensional spacetime we could at least consider a theory like this one enough to perform the experiments it mentions.

But there are reasons for these things. Tony doesn't understand the deep mathematical motivations behind, say, 11 dimensions. I don't understand the math, but I understand the argument. The fact is that if string theory is correct, then it can only be correct in 10 (or 11) dimensions. In this sense, string theory predicts the dimension of space time, whereas Tony and Einstein (I can't believe the two are in the same sentence!) put the dimension in by hand.

The motivation behind dark matter is that it is the only way to stabilize the outer arms of galaxies. It MUST be there otherwise spiral galaxies (like the Milky Way) cannot exist.

 

[Xelios]

The motivation behind dark matter is that it is the only way to stabilize the outer arms of galaxies. It MUST be there otherwise spiral galaxies (like the Milky Way) cannot exist.

I'm not suggesting dark matter doesn't explain things that can't otherwise be explained, I'm only suggesting that if we're prepared to posit the existance of invisible matter we can't detect we should consider the possibility that we've overlooked something far more fundemental in our explanations of the universe.

It's a bit like the mysterious aether that turned out to be completely wrong. As time went on more and more prediction and theory was built onto the faulty premise of aether, and as a result the characteristics of the aether needed for these theories to make sense became more and more ridiculous. Then Einstein came along, changed our understanding of physics on a fundemental level and the idea of aether became unnecessary.

So yes, positing 11 dimensions does make string theory work. Positing dark matter does explain how spiral galaxies retain their shape. Just as aether could explain the propogation of light before Einstein, if only it was a liquid one million times stronger than steel. Just because it's an answer that works doesn't mean it's automatically the right one, especially when it hasn't been observed directly.

 

[BenTheMan]

I'm not suggesting dark matter doesn't explain things that can't otherwise be explained, I'm only suggesting that if we're prepared to posit the existance of invisible matter we can't detect we should consider the possibility that we've overlooked something far more fundemental in our explanations of the universe.

But this is the exact opposite of the way we do science. We fill in the broad outlines, and then the finer details with small changes. The fact is, there are many theories which predict dark matter. We don't have to "posit its existence". We have many theories which predict dark-matter like particles. In fact, one of the tests a new theory is whether or not it HAS a dark matter candidate.

As time went on more and more prediction and theory was built onto the faulty premise of aether, and as a result the characteristics of the aether needed for these theories to make sense became more and more ridiculous.

Yes. But the situation with dark matter is nothing like this. In the grand scheme of things, dark matter is a small problem. It is naturally explained within the context of many different ideas.

Just because it's an answer that works doesn't mean it's automatically the right one, especially when it hasn't been observed directly.

This is a common misconception---it the answer makes sense and it gives the correct numerical results, and it matches the experiments, then there is no reason to expect that it is NOT the right answer.

 

[Uclock]

post #28

BenTheMan

“Originally Posted by UClock
The point I am trying to make is, yes you can use any manifold but the use of a manifold means GR requires a kind of scaffolding on which to place the equations. The term background independent means that it is not subject to a particular manifold and therefore physicists think the term background independent is justified but is it really?”

But GR works on any pseudo-Riemannian manifold---in this sense it is background independant. Your theory of "three dimensional space time" requires that you sepcify "three dimensions". "Three dimensions" is a property of a manifold, therefore you have specified a manifold.

For someone who has not read my theory you do jump to conclusions. I do not specify three dimensions. They are created by the flow of time.
Yours and the mainstreams idea of what is so called ‘background independent’ is not justified otherwise GR would work without the use of any manifold.

From your second sentence it is clear that you and I are working from the same definition of background independance. What is not clear is that you understand that definition.

I understand the mainstreams definition of background independence but I don’t agree with it. The term independent is ‘not depending on something else for its validity, efficiency, value, etc’ but GR does depend on a manifold, maybe not a particular manifold but it must use one.

“That’s funny because I used only one TR equation alongside the ideal gas law to model the events leading up to the Big Bang, the event of the Big Bang itself and the following expansion of the Universe.”

But you specified three dimensions. One can get the same conclusions from GR. Specify de Sitter space. Use Einstein's equations. The rest follows.

Again, you have not even read TR let alone understood it. The three dimensions of space are a natural consequence of the flow of time so I don’t specify these dimensions. They are constantly being generated by all objects and are modelled by the TR equations.

“1. Name me one working theory of gravity that does not use Newton’s gravitational constant?
2. I will ask you to address the evidence found by Cahill in terms of GR if you can? ”

The first quesiton is irrelevant. Gravity is a force, therefore there should be some constant which describes the coupling of gravity to matter---i.e. the strength. Newton's constant is the constant that describes the strength of the gravitational interraction. If your theory doesn't have such a constant, then it is worthless, as you cannot predict the strength of Gravitational interaction. I ask you---what is the strength of the gravitational interaction?

The first question is hardly irrelevant. I am saying to you that no professional or institution has ever come up with a theory of gravity that does not use Newton’s universal gravitational constant but I have.
I am stating that TR can match Newtonian gravity within the confines of the solar system where we know the effect of gravity to be true. Outside the solar system we have to rely on the theories of Newton and Einstein, neither of which work without the inclusion of dark matter. TR on the other hand does not require dark matter to explain observations of the almost fixed rotation of stars in spiral galaxies because gravity is not a force that works over an infinite distance.

Gravity is not a force in the sense that Newton understood it. It is as Einstein stated, it is a distortion of spacetime.
If gravity was a force then any object in free fall would ‘feel’ a force but that is not the case. Objects move in a gravitational field not because an unbalanced force acts on them but because spacetime itself is distorted.

Again, you have not read TR, if you had you would know that it uses a constant called the STC (spacetime constant) and in the paper I tell you how this constant can be calculated accurately from drop test experiments using simple geometry.

I can predict the gravitational interaction using equations (14) & (15) by means of the displacement of objects due to the gravitational field. It would help if you were at least to read the paper before telling me what TR can and can’t do.

What do you mean address it?

I thought the question was obvious enough.
Please explain the experimental evidence found by Reg Cahill of the inflow of space in towards the Sun in terms of GR?
If GR has validity then there will be an explanation for such an inflow or perhaps you might just dismiss the evidence as flawed but Cahill is a well respected experimental physicist so be careful.


Tony

____________________________
This is the theory of True Relativity

____________________________________
Time dilation inside and outside gravity fields

____________________
Article on True Relativity

 

[Uclock]

Xelios

I'm not a physicist, but I've read through the theory and article and I think it's an interesting idea. At the least it deserves to be tested. I will agree with Ben that there are problems it can't account for right off the bat, but this theory is talking about reshaping a huge portion of modern physics. I think it would be premature to write it off because an aspect of modern physics does not agree with it.

Yes unfortunately it is a paradigm shift in the way spacetime is viewed and it will mean other parts of physics may have to be revisited if the results turn up what is expected by TR. The biggest problem I see is the instant dismissal by professionals because it means Einstein’s relativity is challenged.

I've done a lot of casual reading in physics, and while I'm by no means an expert in the subject it does seem like there's an awful lot of confusion these days. If we're ready to posit the existance of things like invisible dark matter and 11 dimensional spacetime we could at least consider a theory like this one enough to perform the experiments it mentions. If those experiments produce the results expected in "True Relativity" that's at least an indication that the theory deserves a good look, if they don't, well, we can all go back to positing increasingly complicated scenarios to deal with the problems modern physics isn't explaining very well.

Again unfortunately it’s the professionals that hold all the resources and only they can perform the necessary experiments. It is difficult enough even to get them to look at the paper let alone take any notice of it, although it’s nice to see someone with an open mind, thanks Xelios.

Tony

 

[Xelios]

But this is the exact opposite of the way we do science. We fill in the broad outlines, and then the finer details with small changes. The fact is, there are many theories which predict dark matter. We don't have to "posit its existence". We have many theories which predict dark-matter like particles. In fact, one of the tests a new theory is whether or not it HAS a dark matter candidate.

And if dark matter is ever detected and proven to exist I'd be happy to admit that I'm completely wrong. Until then I'm skeptical about its existence. Isn't that a healthy part of science, skepticism? Or should we really be so entrenched in modern physical theories that for any new theory to be credible it must predict a form of matter we've yet to see outside of abstract maths? The best theory would account for the effects of dark matter without actually needing a hypothetical form of matter to explain them.

This is a common misconception---it the answer makes sense and it gives the correct numerical results, and it matches the experiments, then there is no reason to expect that it is NOT the right answer.

That's true, but there can still be more than one right answer to a question. Newtons theory of gravity is a great example of this. In weak gravitational fields both Newton's theory and Relativity make identical predictions, but eventually problems started to crop up. Instead of trying to explain these problems in Newtonion gravity Einstein formulated an entirely new theory that not only accounted for Newtonian movement but also the problems it couldn't. We still use both to this day. Relativity was a fundemental change in our understanding of physics, not just a refinement of Newton's theories. It showed there was more going on in the background of Newton's theories than we previously knew about, and those new concepts ended up solving a lot of problems.

That's all I'm saying. We should refine theories, but we shouldn't forget about the possibility that we've missed something fundemental that could explain problems with those theories and still account for the accurate predictions they make. In my view it's pretty naive to think something like the revelation Einstein brought will not happen again in the future.

 

[Uclock]

BenTheMan

The idea of Lorentz Invariance (i.e. that time should be treated as a dimension) is such an integral part of modern physics that to abandon it would mean reformulating 100 years of work.

And now you have hit the nail on the head. 100 years of work must not be challenge, even if it is wrong, because it would mean so many professionals have wasted their time, which of course is not true. GR has been successful in many ways but in these last hundred years it has never shown any sign that gravity itself can be harnessed and although it may turn out to be a painful experience for the physics community, if TR is correct then this rethinking of gravity will mean everyone will benefit in the long run.

When I say that this idea is not right, I mean that every experiment that we do which gives us correct results (i.e. the theory matches the experiment) is a test of this idea. And there is absolutely no reason to expect that time is not a dimension.

Not every experiment. First of all there is no explanation for quantum entanglement in GR nor can it explain the inflow of space in towards the Sun let alone inertia.
The only reason to expect time is a separate dimension is because it is the physics you have been taught. I would agree with you if TR failed to model gravity as efficiently as Newtonian physics but TR can, and this alone should make professionals sit up and take notice yet they dismiss it first of all because it comes from an amateur and secondly because it may mean physics having to be revisited which will not go down well with the physics community.

Xelios:
“If we're ready to posit the existance of things like invisible dark matter and 11 dimensional spacetime we could at least consider a theory like this one enough to perform the experiments it mentions.”

But there are reasons for these things. Tony doesn't understand the deep mathematical motivations behind, say, 11 dimensions. I don't understand the math, but I understand the argument. The fact is that if string theory is correct, then it can only be correct in 10 (or 11) dimensions. In this sense, string theory predicts the dimension of space time, whereas Tony and Einstein (I can't believe the two are in the same sentence!) put the dimension in by hand.

First of all, as I keep telling you I do not put the dimensions in by hand, they are generated because of the flow of time.
As far a string theory is concerned it may be very mathematically pretty but it is only a mathematical concept and an extremely complex one at that.
It is purely logical, well at least to me, that the Universe is born out of simplicity not complexity and three dimensional spacetime is so simple that at least according to Occum’s razor it may very well hold merit.

The motivation behind dark matter is that it is the only way to stabilize the outer arms of galaxies. It MUST be there otherwise spiral galaxies (like the Milky Way) cannot exist.

That is only because you are using a theory of gravity that needs dark matter bolted onto it to explain observations. TR does not require or need dark matter to explain such observations.

Tony

____________________________
This is the theory of True Relativity

____________________________________
Time dilation inside and outside gravity fields

____________________
Article on True Relativity

 

[Uclock]

BenTheMan

Xelios:
“I'm not suggesting dark matter doesn't explain things that can't otherwise be explained, I'm only suggesting that if we're prepared to posit the existance of invisible matter we can't detect we should consider the possibility that we've overlooked something far more fundemental in our explanations of the universe.”

But this is the exact opposite of the way we do science. We fill in the broad outlines, and then the finer details with small changes.

Science should be about investigation so I have put to you a theory that is falsifiable which means it can be tested and if the broad outlines of present theories are wrong in the first place then the so called ‘finer details’ will also be wrong.

The fact is, there are many theories which predict dark matter. We don't have to "posit its existence". We have many theories which predict dark-matter like particles. In fact, one of the tests a new theory is whether or not it HAS a dark matter candidate.

But dark matter is only needed to explain observations using Einstein’s theory of gravity. If TR can explain these observations without the use of dark matter then who’s to say which theory of gravity is correct? IMHO it will be the most simple explanation of gravity.
If dark matter had been directly detected then we would not be having this conversation but is has not been directly detected which means the theories that require dark matter may very well be wrong.

Xelios:
“As time went on more and more prediction and theory was built onto the faulty premise of aether, and as a result the characteristics of the aether needed for these theories to make sense became more and more ridiculous.”

Yes. But the situation with dark matter is nothing like this. In the grand scheme of things, dark matter is a small problem. It is naturally explained within the context of many different ideas.

I think Xelios is right. All too often physics gets itself tied into a theory and has to make up more and more elaborate theories to explain observational and experimental evidence. It looses simplicity which is not a good thing and then finds great difficulty in letting go because so much work has gone into it.

Xelios:
“Just because it's an answer that works doesn't mean it's automatically the right one, especially when it hasn't been observed directly.”

This is a common misconception---it the answer makes sense and it gives the correct numerical results, and it matches the experiments, then there is no reason to expect that it is NOT the right answer.

There is every reason, especially if it has not been directly detected.


Tony

____________________________
This is the theory of True Relativity

____________________________________
Time dilation inside and outside gravity fields

____________________
Article on True Relativity

 

[Singularity]

...

But dark matter is only needed to explain observations using Einstein’s theory of gravity. If TR can explain these observations without the use of dark matter then who’s to say which theory of gravity is correct? IMHO it will be the most simple explanation of gravity.
If dark matter had been directly detected then we would not be having this conversation but is has not been directly detected which means the theories that require dark matter may very well be wrong.

....

OffTopic.

Please say if this is possible.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1339279

 

[Uclock]

Singularity

OffTopic:

For your premiss to work nearly all of these so called 'dead stars' would have to be in the galaxy halo which we know is not the case.

Tony

 

[BenTheMan]

Uclock. The first page of the first article you posted. I think your "space time constant" plays the role of Newton's constant.

Any claims that you reproduce gravity without "Newton's constant" are only technically true. It's not called "Newton's constant" anymore because you renamed it.

This took me five minutes to find. This is why I don't need to read your papers.