The Theory of Invariance

A bit more on this extra galactic speed of light. An electron let's say, is just outside our galaxy. It's energy if it were inside would be E =mc^2 = 9.11E-31 * (2.9979E ^2 But it's ouside so its energy is going to be 9.11E-31 * (3.29E ^2 The ratio of these two energy levels is going to be about 83%

"According to observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology interpreted under the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric, dark matter accounts for 23% of the mass-energy density of the observable universe. In comparison, ordinary matter accounts for only 4.6% of the mass-energy density of the observable universe, with the remainder being attributable to dark energy.[2][3] From these figures, dark matter constitutes 83% of the matter in the universe, while ordinary matter makes up only 17%." Wikipedia

We don't need any dark energy, the galactic halo is made up of ordinary matter that has more e.m. energy.

I tried this out on a physicist I sometimes chat via e mail to. He wouldn't hear of it. So i said how come my maths is no good but the whole dark energy thing is good? I was told that the dark energy theory has nothing to do with the speed of light but is to do with the acceleration of the expanding universe. Another case of the sacred cow of the speed of light I think.

Some more on this question of the extra galactic speed of light. We have a universe that appears to be a "white hole". Its Schwarzchild radius by my estimate is 2.919e 25 metres. We are at a radius of about 1.4E 26 metres. Now that's not how big the universe is but if we increase the radius the value of G will decrease.

As explained in a post above I get an extra galactic speed of light of 3.29E 8 metres, so we're out in our estimate of how far galaxies are by 10% let's hop into a space ship and get outside our galaxy and maybe even the local group but stay at that radius of 1.4E 26 metres.

We look directly at a sphere of radius 2.919E 25 metres. A place where light is in a capture orbit. We could see all of the galaxies at that radius, due to the lens effect, however we can see them because of their apparent red shift. it appears to us that they are wrapped around us. Galaxies a little closer to us, we'll see as red shifted but we are seeing a little than 100% of them.

Yet we still wrap this smaller area round our radius of 1.4E 26 metres and we close this "blind spot" by stretching that area closed. When the blind spot is about 10 degrees in diameter we only see half of the galaxies, light is not "bending round the corner" as much, yet we still stretch it closed. The result looks like a change of galaxy distribution.

Right, so back to our space ship sitting where G is the local value. Anywhere you care to look, you're looking at the Schwarzchild radius of the universe. So e.m. forces are balanced. You don't move. If the velocity of gravitational force propagation is much much faster than that of light, you do move. Because effectively there's no lensing of gravity at that radius of
2.919E 25 metres. The radius where gravity could enter an orbital path is minute, about
3E-9 metres.

The "Great Attractor" springs to mind, we appear to be moving towards it at about 500 km per second and the estimate for its distance is about 250 million light years. I'll have to come back to this point later.

A little bit of maths. r c_0^2 [ 1 - sqrt ( 1 - v^2 / c_0^2)] = GM sqrt ( 1 - v^2 / c_0^2 )

M = 3.93E 52 kg
c_0 = 3.29E 8 metres per second
v = 2.9979E 8 metres (the contracted speed of light)

That gives us r c_0^2 (0.58807) = GM (.4119)

From this I estimate that the universe has about 3.4 times the mass of the visible universe with which to make new galaxies as the Schwarzchild radius contracts over time.

I did say that I was going to come back to a point alter on. Some time ago I put up a link to a horizon t.v. programme, about the cosmos and particularly dark energy and dark matter. Most of the astronomers were less than enthusiastic about the entire concept of dark anything. The result seems to be that w have ditance measurements which are wither old values, new measured values, or theoretical values based on the dark matter dark energy model. Looking at this webpage we also have, I think, a putting the horse before the cart, with regard to dark matter clumping. www.solstation.com/x-objects/first.htm

Now, if we had never heard of relativity theory, then a statement that the refractive index of the universe was different to that inside of a galaxy, I doubt there would be any great argument. It's when one says that the speed of light in the universe is faster than the locally measured speed of light that the howls of protest come in.

If we have an electron let's say, in extra galactic space, then it has a higher energy tahn an electron in our local space. E = 9.11E-31*(2.9979E ^2 / 9.11E-31*(3.29E ^2 Which gives us our dark energy ratio of about 83%

The electron's mass doesn't change the angular velocity does but we can keep the electron's radius at the Compton wavelength, about 2.4E-12. So we have a change in angular momentum. Well this is what we see in terms of the flattened angular momentum curves of spiral galaxies. It looks "lumpy" and seems to differ from galaxy to galaxy, because galaxies come in clumps and they're relatively very close to each other, and of course it also depends on the shape of the galaxy.

There's one thing that has me hugely intrigued. if we say that the Schwarzchild radius of the "universe" is 2.9193E 25 metres and we get the radius where we are i.e. where G has its current value, then the ratio is 0.20818 = 2GM / r * c^2 That's the angle theta in radians so multiply that by 2pi /360 and we get twice the Fine Structure Constant. Hmm...

I thought that as interesting too stoat...

I have been seeing the need to work from the constants from the Universe
particularly the c= speed of Light and G= the Newtonian Gravitational constant
"Indeed all my simulations are purely mathematical in nature and use no constants" YET...

MARX

Neutrinos faster than light get along with the theory of invariance:

***

Cindy,

Links to a third party web page that has a news item or similar information of general astronomical or physics interest are frequently allowed here. A major exception is when the target page has pop-ups or agressive ads.

But we generally frown on links to your personal stuff, including theory pages.

You can tell us about it. And you can tell us where to look for it. But actual links are mostly taken down when they are discovered.

LB