Hi again Nereid,

Nereid,

You need to read the Technical Paper accessed at the top of the home page. In theoretical material it's very difficult to understand what is being said when it's taken out of context. After you're done reading it fire me questions.

respectfully, forrest

Prediction 44

(bold in original)

Certainly a quantitative prediction. In principle, it's also testable ... just wait 20/35/60 billion years.

Using today's tools and technology, and assuming patience runs out after ~20 years, this might be testable: look for "about 20 billion year" old galaxies, for example, and see whether they are "begin[ning] to dissipate".

That last test can't be done, of course, as no galaxy observed to date is >13 billion years old.

However, galaxy ages may be misunderstood, and mis-estimated; using methods built from the foundation ToE of the ATM idea presented in this thread, it may be possible, objectively and unambiguously, to go from astronomical observations to estimates of galaxy age. Let's wait and see what answers there are to questions on predictions 31, 23, and (maybe) 19; if there is such a method, it can be applied (in principle), but if there is no such method, then this prediction becomes untestable.

Update: fn's later post on this gave me the push to go look at the "Calculations on page 63".

Here's a curious thing: there is no "page 63"!

Is it really not there? Or did I just miss it?

Help please, fn.

respectfully, Nereid

Been there, done that ... can I have the tee-shirt now please?

There's nothing in that material on "light years old"!

Every use in that document, that I could find, of "light years" is either explicit about it being a distance, or strongly implied by the context.

Every use in that document, that I could find, of "old" is either explicit about it referring to time, or strongly implies it in the context in which it is used.

But perhaps I missed something vital; please quote the paragraph in which the concept of distance-time, measured in 'light years of age', is defined or introduced.

In any case, how does one go about estimating the age of a galaxy, based on the relevant (good) astronomical observations, in a manner that is fully consistent with your ATM ideas? Please present first an outline and then the details - with equations, formulae, numbers, algorithms, etc - of how this can be done.

respectfully, Nereid

Prediction 46

(bold in original)

There are several predictions here, but only one is quantitative: "The current Pan Theory prediction concerning the age of the average galaxy cycle is between 40 to 80 Billion years".

While there is, in this prediction, no mention of the distribution of galaxy cycle times around the "average"*, it is testable ... by waiting 40 to 80 billion years, and observing whether galaxies that old (per definition) have spawned "next predecessor galax[ies]" which are "first start[ing to] form[] stars".

However, without anything quantitative about the distribution about the "average", this prediction cannot be tested today, as no observed galaxy is older than ~13 billion years.

The same rider as for predictions 44, 31, 23, and (perhaps) 19 applies.

respectfully, Nereid

* is this a mean? median? mode??

Prediction 74

(bold in original)

Well, this prediction is certainly quantitative!

But is it testable, even in principle?

I draw a complete blank on possible experiments that could be performed to test this ... forrest, help please.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

That completes my examination of the nine predictions (of 85) that I think are quantitative.

As they stand today, none of the nine is testable today.

When updated, and/or when fn provides clarifications, some of these may turn out to be testable (e.g. 8, 19, and 74).

However, all but one (two?) will really only be amenable to testing when unambiguous, objective, and complete descriptions of methods of going from astronomical observations to estimates of age and distance, based entirely upon the ToE ATM ideas presented, become available. Per several of fn's posts in this thread, that will likely be quite a while yet.

Next, a look at the remaining 76 predictions, all non-quantitative, to see whether any are testable, even in principle.

respectfully, Nereid

I would rather like to know how one would even define the prediction prior to an attempt to test it. It is difficult to devise a test until one knows what one is talking about.

Elementary particles, such as the electron are modeled as point particles in modern theories. It rather escapes me as to how a single point could be anything other than 100% space or 100% particle. Anything in between strikes me as rather difficult to accomplish within a single point. I think I would vote for 100% particle, since otherwise the electron would disappear, would it not?

Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, 3 of the little beggars each, and quarks are point particles. So what might me the volume of a proton, and if it has such, then the three points that comprise it ought themselves to contain no volume (like the vertices of a tetrahedron) so a proton might well be 100% space. This does not strike me as particularly useful information, even if one might make sense of it.

On the other hand:

"There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about." -- John von Neumann

Lest anyone misunderstand, I am most certainly not implying that Neried does not know what she is talking about.

Here's an alternative, most of which we see as common phenomenon now. First(ultimate simplicity), A vast "sea of nothingness". Second(a super hot explosion), energy is created. Third(inflation), the energy constantly expands (c) as it is constantly being created at a constant rate (c). This is the creation of time, D=S*T. Fourth(deceleration), Once the energy's heat and the cold of nothingness press against each other an insulating layer would start to build up. Eventually the layer of condensed energy would start to freeze against the cold, until it was frozen solid. This whole time the inflation is still in effect. On the outside of the frozen ball the constant expansion of the free energy is the same but the constant creation is no longer there. This would give the appearance of D=S*T/2. The free energy starts to dissipate. Fifth(the constant expansion), On the inside of the frozen ball, inflation(time) is still normal D=S*c^2. The pressure pushes on the inside wall of the condensed energy, causing the table of elements. Until...... Sixth(the accelerated expansion or "dark energy"), The frozen mass starts to crack and eventually burst from the pressure of "dark energy". The mass displaces the "dark energy"or (inflation). Free energy expands faster than condensed energy (gravity) and light is merely a wave that can travel in the "dark energy".
I believe this alternative is superlative to the present model, what do you think Forrest?

__________________
Just because it's complex doesn't mean it's true!

If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it!

I think you need to start your own thread, instead of presenting your ideas in this one. This thread is complex enough with several people examining Forrest's ideas.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

And hopefully it would be something new, and not a retread of rebel's previous ATM threads, like this:

Rebel's theory of gravity

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

This forum, BAUT, focuses on astronomy and space.

Several of the non-quantitative predictions seem to have no direct relevance to astronomy and space, for example prediction 4:
(bold in original)

Others that seem to be of the same kind are: 5, 15, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 57, 58, 61, 62, and 83.

Prediction 17 ("The speed of light here on Earth is not constant –Outgoing radiation, perpendicular to the Earth’s surface, would be slower than incoming radiation because of the accelerating aether producing gravity, is moving into the earth. The speed of light is relative to the time frame the light was emitted.") relates to the experiment briefly mentioned in the OP; while the prediction, as written, is not quantitative, as it has been discussed in this thread, it is.

Predictions 36 ("Anti-protons are not stable particles." - heading only) and 59 ("An antiproton is not a stable particle" - heading only) may be of interest, given their likely relevance to cosmic rays. Likewise prediction 60 ("Ipan Theory predicts there will be more presently unidentified types of high-energy neutral particles found" - heading only).

There are some predictions that seem to be principally Earth science, but have some relevance to BAUT: 55, 56, and 80.

I will next take a look at the predictions that seem to be primarily testable - should they be formulated as quantitative hypotheses - using astronomical techniques; I will start with those concerning objects outside our solar system (beyond the heliopause/heliosheath).

rebel,

Just from your brief description it's hard for me to get a grasp on the concepts and theory you're proposing. I'm trying to stir answers and questions in the direction where such questions would relate to this pushing theory of gravity. If you want my opinion concerning the idea that you presented, please contact me on my website at pantheory.org. My e-mail on the site is pantheory.org@gmail.com

Contact me on the site and I'll try to answer your questions concerning your ideas and give you my opinion. I appreciate your interest in my opinion.

respectfully, forrest

This model refers back to the opening post that this thread was started upon. 1. Forrest's model with the gravity pushing theory is exactly what I'm talking about. 2. Forrest's model has small aether particles bouncing off of each other having a uniform pressure and that is exactly what I'm talking about, my comparison is the creation of time. 3. Forrest's model has a difference in force surrounding all matter, mine is the same (displacement). 4. Forrest's model has a force filling in behind a dropped object toward mass causing a push of gravity, mine has the exact same. 5. Forrest's model purposes that photons are merely waves in aether as is mine. 6. The only real difference is that Forrest wants to test gravity by performing experiments on light traveling up vs. down, and I think it would be easier to test the expanse of pressure or gravity on an object at ground level vs. high altitude (only because it would be cheaper). As you can well see, I am not trying to start any new thread. I just wanted to know what Forrest thought about our models that are so closely related and hoped that putting it in my words could help Forrest explain his thoughts to me in my "language". Please forgive me if you can't see the comparisons between the two models, they are the same idea!

__________________
Just because it's complex doesn't mean it's true!

If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it!

Thanks Forrest, I'll do that. Yes, I do have some questions I hope that you can help me with.

__________________
Just because it's complex doesn't mean it's true!

If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it!

Nereid,

For the general understanding of readers, this prediction of mine was extracted from the prediction section of my book by Nereid for the purpose of this discussion.

"One galactic cycle “from birth to rebirth” is about 60 Billion years long. After about 20 billion years many galaxy will begin to dissipate. After 35 billion years some galaxy structures may no longer be visible to distant observers."

Directly below are her comments since the quote thingy doesn't seem to be working right now.

(quote)Certainly a quantitative prediction. In principle, it's also testable ... just wait 20/35/60 billion years.
Using today's tools and technology, and assuming patience runs out after ~20 years, this might be testable: look for "about 20 billion year" old galaxies, for example, and see whether they are "begin[ning] to dissipate".

That last test can't be done, of course, as no galaxy observed to date is >13 billion years old.

However, galaxy ages may be misunderstood, and mis-estimated; using methods built from the foundation ToE of the ATM idea presented in this thread, it may be possible, objectively and unambiguously, to go from astronomical observations to estimates of galaxy age. Let's wait and see what answers there are to questions on predictions 31, 23, and (maybe) 19; if there is such a method, it can be applied (in principle), but if there is no such method, then this prediction becomes untestable.(/quote)



In my previous reply to you I suggested that you read the Technical Paper on the website so that you could understand my answers to your related question if you wish to stir the discussion in that direction. By your questions I realize you don't seem to have read this paper, so obviously you could not understand the prediction or my answers to your questions when I give them. If I am mistaken and you have read the paper, let me know so that I can answer you accordingly.

You have asked questions of me that I believe are not related to the topic of this thread. Like I said before, everything is related to everything else in general but for this thread I hope that we need to stay on topic, my pushing theory of gravity, without diverging too much. The problem with these questions and diversions is that my theory, as I said before, is a Theory of Everything and we can't talk about everything relating to cosmology and physics on this thread. Again I appreciate that you are trying to get to the bottom line of this theory to see if it has any validity, but the book is 340 pages long and we cannot diverge that much.

Again, read the Technical Paper accessed by the link at the top of the home page at pantheory.org. After you read this paper I believe that you will be better able to understand the answers that I will give for your related questions.

Following my explanation to your time-length questions concerning my prediction, I'll wrap it up by showing whatever relationship that I can think of concerning this prediction and my pushing theory of gravity. I'm hoping that for whatever reason you choose to diverge from the thread, that you will keep in mind the singular train of thought concerning the topic.

Since you have a lot of questions backlogged and I'm only answering two at a time, with a least one person in between, you might wish to prioritize the questions whereby I'll try to answer them in your preferred order.

If you are seriously interested in my answers to any other questions that you have concerning things in my book that are seemingly unrelated to this topic, then ask me on the site or e-mail me at pantheory.org@gmail.com and I will answer them ASAP.

respectfully, forrest

DrRocket,

This question is both yours and also a question by Nereid.

Directly below is one of the predictions from the Prediction section of my book "A Wholly Unified Model of Cosmology and Physics" which can be seen at pantheory.org, the prediction section page 104.

Quote:

"Atomic Particles: protons, electrons, and neutrons are all more than 99% space. For the same reason atoms are known to be more than 99% space. The same would be true of all atomic particles that spin. Only because of their spin does most atomic and molecular matter appear to be solid even in their lowest energy state."


As I explained to Nereid, since she originally posted this prediction, that hopefully we can stay on topic. All of these questions are valid but they are not on topic. I'll give you a “quick answer” and a referral to the related pages of the book to explain this prediction and try to relate my answer to my pushing gravity theory.

Again, my theory is a "theory of everything" which means that it should be able to answer all the major "how" and "why" questions that could be asked or imagined concerning the mechanics of how our universe works and why it works that way. This is the 50th anniversary of the theory.

According to this theory, matter is made up of spinning loops. You can see a picture of my conception of how they look on pages 23 and 24, and further explanations and pictures on pages 86-94. This matter is originally made from long strings of field particles surrounding galactic black holes, which are themselves accordingly a compressed form of aether. This accordingly is where all protons and electrons are created as well as the matter for all subsequent stars and galaxies. This theory of particle formation is offered as an alternative to point particle and quark theory. Accordingly what today are called quarks, is just describing the mechanics of relative positions within these single loops.

The main theme of the entire theory is that all matter and aether-field particles are all made up of one single elementary particle. Additionally, what today we now call forces like my theory of gravity, can all be similarly explained by the mechanics of the interactions of these field particles with matter, such as both my theories of gravity and magnetism, or they are concerned with physical connections of interacting matter, like the strong force, the weak force, and the strong interaction. There accordingly would be only one "a priori" force, the force which perpetuates the spin of fermions.

In all of these theories I try to explain the exact mechanics of how these forces work as I'm attempting to do on this thread by explaining my theory of both how gravity works and why it works that way.

As far as the prediction is concerned, the related text explains that almost the entire mass that we can physically test is made up of the fast rotating field particles in the vortices would accordingly surround all matter. Accordingly less than one percent of the mass would be made up of the particle itself. It might be thought of as a similar model to atoms where more than 99% of their volume is made up of space. In my model this 99% of the atom is comprised of these particle spinning vortices which accordingly would contain virtually all what we call the "mass characteristic" of matter. These spinning vortices are pushed by the vortices of other matter as well as the pushing forces of gravity which we call gravity.

For those that have major related questions you should read the entire book from beginning to end and then we could have a logical discussion concerning the related theories at my website.

respectfully, forrest

I have having the greatest of difficulty following your logic, fn.

In post#196, in direct answer to the Cap't question "What would falsify your theory?", you said (bold added):
Near the top of this "page 104", one reads your own definition of "prediction":
Note the "observation" part.

In post#208, you wrote:
and:What is "it"? What did I propose?

Here is what I wrote, concerning the predictions I have just finished examining, one per post (bold added):
Forrest, it was you yourself who introduced the 85 predictions, and you yourself who connected them directly and unambiguously to "my pushing theory of gravity".

Are you now saying that at least some of these 85 predictions are not, in fact, tests of your theory?

Just after your definition of "prediction", on "page 104", we read this:
Now which of the nine quantitative predictions I examined have an F against them? Well, there are three: 1, 8, ... and 74.

So, may I make a sincere request?

Before you answer any other questions, how about you take the time to state, clearly and unambiguously, which of your nine quantitative predictions (that I examined) are directly related to your 'theory of pushing gravity'?

And, in all your future posts, how about you refrain from irrelevant comments, refrain from taking pot-shots at what you see as the shortcomings of mainstream astrophysics, and focus exclusively on that which is directly pertinent to your 'theory of pushing gravity'? Don't forget that any ATM idea you write, in this thread, is by default something which any BAUT member can challenge ... in fact, the rules of this section strongly encourage exactly such challenging.

Further, where someone takes the trouble to both read what you wrote, examine it, and write lengthy posts on it, if you subsequently feel it is 'off topic', would you please take the trouble to explain, explain, and explain again just what your your 'theory of pushing gravity' is?

respectfully, Nereid

Unfortunately without a mathematical model your 'theory' is just story telling.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

This needs a specific response.

forrest, I am seriously interested in doing exactly what the BAUT rules recommend.

Specifically, rule 13 (extract, bold added):
Whatever ATM idea you choose to post here, I am interested in attacking.

My method of attack, as you have noted, is to first understand the ATM idea - as presented - by asking as many questions about it as I feel necessary.

If you do not wish me, or any other BAUT member, to question, challenge, attack, etc an ATM idea of yours, then please, do yourself a favour and do not post it here.

respectfully, Nereid

(bold added)

Here is a recent arXiv preprint which will likely be published in relevant, peer-reviewed journal in the next month or so.

To what extent do you consider the findings reported in this preprint to be "dark matter in the proportions and distributions necessary to enable GR to make [...] predictions within spiral galaxies and the rotation of galaxy clusters"?

In your answer, please ensure that you have both read and understood this preprint, and the underlying cosmological models and astrophysics. Please also ensure that you have a firm grasp of when various key papers - theoretical, reporting observations - were published; this is important to your point about "future predictions".

Related question: what do you mean by "they can see it by its opaqueness"?

And who are the "they"?

respectfully, Nereid

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Tensor,

Thanks for your informative comments and the related reference material.

Below are the combined comments of Tensor’s postings # 247 & 265

Yeah, I know that they are non-linear equations, that’s why I proposed to “adopt” them.

The fact that Einstein didn’t propose that gravity warps space, is very good to know. I’ll try to find a quotable archive for this and put it in my book. My theories have a real problem with space being anything other than simply “an extension of matter, and the volume which matter occupies.” If Einstein didn’t suggest this warped-space idea, then many of those trying to explain his equations do make such statements concerning GR. If not the equations of GR, then the only other reason that I know of that would require physical deformation characteristics to space would be the requirements of the Big Bang Theory which requires space to expand to explain the theory. This, in my opinion, is another failing of the BB model. Of course the problem always relates back to what reasonable alternatives are Cosmologists aware of.

His requirements were that the Speed of light be a limiting factor, Newtonian gravity should be recovered in the weak gravity, slow speed domain, that the conservations laws be applicable (at least locally), and most important, that the equations be covariant, using Tom Bearden as a source. Special relativity was not derived from Maxwell's equations. It was derived based on two postulates. He then showed how to transform Maxwell's equations into a different frame of reference. This showed how Maxwell's equations didn't need an underlying medium. And I would guess that Bearden doesn't realized that "fluid" can refer to a liquid, gas, or plasma, the last two a rather good description of space.[/quote]

Thanks Tensor for this information.

These equations are modified Newtonian equations like MOND gravity equations which also were proposed as alternatives to GR for long range analysis since GR for this distance range requires arbitrary quantities of dark matter and cannot make predictions such as the orbital momentum of disk stars in our galaxy, the orbital momentum of galaxies in a cluster, or the gravity mechanics and motions of the observable universe as a whole for the same reason.

I realize that my non-linear vector equations are just modified “limit” equations like Newton’s, if they have valid. At this point in time, however, I don’t believe that to modify GR correctly, even if I could, would add any precision to the ultimate predictions at a distance. This is because it is my opinion there would be too many estimated variables to use GR at these distance ranges, just as there are in my own equations but that my equations can generally predict the orbital momentum of disk stars in our galaxy without the need for dark matter. I propose that my equations, if correct, are limit equations like Newton’s which I believe is what is really needed at the present time.

What is really needed at the present time, I believe, would be to correctly model galaxies, galaxy clusters, and the universe as a whole. If my proposed experimental test of the speed of light turns out to be correct, I will seek help and a consensus on how I should proceed with my equations or instead should modify GR for these ranges. I and a team of physicists may be able to do so using my limit equation as a model for these long range predictions or they could come up with their own ideas for this modification.

Thanks for the comment. I’ll make changes to the wording that I can verify with quotes which my editor requires anyway.
It is true it cannot at the present time. As I stated in previous posts, that for the foreseeable future I do not intend to compete with GR for close range predictions.

Thanks again for your information and comments and the time to post on this thread such lengthy comments.

respectfully, forrest

Nereid, Happy Sunday

Nereid, I agree with your statement above but I've explained in numerous posts that as light is bent by a lensing entity, that this bending is caused by a very "close-range" approach of light to the lensing entity. This is the range where GR can make accurate predictions. Where GR cannot make predictions is modeling the motions of galaxies, galaxy clusters, and the universe as a whole. So here we're talking about motions only. This is where GR requires dark matter and therefore cannot predict these motions. This I have asserted is where my long-range equation and other equations such as MOND and TeVeS can make predictions without using dark matter. If you do not like my equations check on these other models that I've mentioned and you will learn about the related problem with GR.

There have been a number of reports that groups of astronomers have visually observed dark matter by its opaquing characteristic of galactic stars behind it. Of course if the definition of dark matter includes anything that cannot be seen directly, then I believe they have spotted massive intergalactic clouds in these cases I'm referring to. It is my contention that dark matter must always be distributed in arbitrary proportions so that no prior accurate predictions can presently be made concerning what is actually observed concerning motions of galaxies using GR gravity models. Statements such as distant galaxy contain a lot more dark matter, I believe are because they have the wrong formulations to work with.

respectfully, forrest

I don't know how to say this gently, forrest, so I'll be blunt: what you wrote is manifestly untrue, both historically and in terms of the physics.

First, at the time MOND was published (1983), estimates of the mass estimates of galaxies and galaxy clusters ("systems of galaxies", in Milgrom's own words) that lead to 'dark matter' were derived from Newtonian dynamics, not GR.

Second, MOND is a short-hand for MOdified Newtonian Dynamics; no GR mentioned nor intended.

Third, in the foundation 'theory' paper on MOND ("Does the missing mass problem signal the breakdown of Newtonian gravity?", by Milgrom and Bekenstein, published in 1984), the MOND fathers, makes it perfectly clear that the formal (MOND) theory is non-relativistic (i.e. incompatible with SR, as well as GR, and all sorts of experimental and observational results).

There is an extension of MOND (more than one actually) that claims to be relativistic, but it is not called MOND (for obvious reasons).

forrest, in an earlier post in this thread, you were critical about people who seemed to you to have not read the material you cited.

Yet here you are making grossly erroneous statements about something which you yourself have said, in this thread, is key wrt your "pushing gravity theory"!

If you do not wish this thread to be derailed by multiple challenges to your claims about the history and physics of GR, MOND, etc, then please first take the trouble to do the research necessary to get these claims correct. I note that this is not the first time your historical/physics claims have been successfully challenged (GR as a 'vortex theory of gravity', for example; 'CMB' is another). In the case of MOND, GR, spiral galaxies, and galaxy clusters, the relevant papers are easy enough to find, and relatively straight-forward to understand.

Normally I'd close with 'respectfully, Nereid', per your request; however in light of the apparent inconsistency in your approach, and the apparent lack of care with background research, I must say my respect is wearing thin.

(this one first)

And Happy Sunday to you too, forrest.

First, can you please confirm, explicitly, that discussion of dark matter in spiral galaxies, and in galaxy clusters, is 'on topic' wrt your 'pushing theory of gravity'?

In any case, please provide at least two references for "There have been a number of reports that groups of astronomers have visually observed dark matter by its opaquing characteristic of galactic stars behind it." For avoidance of doubt, by 'references' I mean papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals; press releases and articles in popsci magazines are explicitly excluded. If you cannot provide such references, please say so; if you need more time to provide them, please say so.

Once all BAUT members can read these papers, I intend to examine this part of your post (that I am quoting) in more detail. It is my contention that you have significantly - possibly grossly - misunderstood either the observations, the astrophysics, or both. And I intend to do this no matter what relevance you say these papers have to your 'pushing theory of gravity' ... such misrepresentations (if that's what they turn out to be) are intolerable in any science-based part of BAUT (to me anyway).

respectfully, Nereid

(bold added)(the second one)

First, can you please confirm, explicitly, that discussion of models of the motions of galaxies and galaxy clusters, the extent to which models incorporating CDM (cold dark matter) are consistent with observations of galaxies and galaxy clusters*, and the consistency of the relevant astronomical observations and GR, is 'on topic' wrt your 'pushing theory of gravity'?

If it is, please show that GR-based models are inconsistent the relevant astronomical observations of (the motions of) galaxies and galaxy clusters. For avoidance of doubt, by 'show' I mean quantitatively, with equations and numbers. Alternatively, please provide references (papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals) that do.

In the OP, you state (extract, bold added):Further, in post#25, you wrote (bold added):And so on.

Can you clarify please? Does your 'pushing theory of gravity' include 'dark matter' or not?

respectfully, Nereid

* I'm leaving aside, for now, "and the universe as a whole", as it was not included in your post#196

forrest, about two and a half years ago I stated a thread in BAUT's (then) Q&A section, entitled "What is the observational basis for (cold, non-baryonic) dark matter?"

Although I intended it to cover (rich) galaxy clusters, (spiral) galaxies, and the universe (as well as other topics), I really only completed the first.

However, the thread contains a wealth of links relevant to what seems to be a central aspect of observational tests of your 'pushing gravity theory' as it applies to (rich) galaxy clusters.

In particular, it briefly covers how the mass of such a cluster may be estimated, by 2 or 3 independent techniques, and mentions that they provide consistent estimates of the total mass of such clusters. Not mentioned, in that thread, but definitely covered in the relevant papers* is that the independent methods are also consistent in terms of conclusions about the distribution of mass within these rich clusters.

If you confirm that observations of rich galaxy clusters are on topic (wrt your 'pushing theory of gravity'), then I would like to explore these independent techniques, wrt the logic chains that lead to conclusions about mass and its distribution, the observations themselves, and their relevance as tests of your ATM idea.

IIRC, there is a similar thread on the observational basis for CDM in (spiral) galaxies, somewhere else (not in BAUT). If I can find it, I'll review it and post it here ... it may serve as the second leg (assuming you confirm that observations of galaxies are on topic wrt your 'pushing theory of gravity').

respectfully, Nereid

* some are given as links in that thread; others are easily found by starting with those papers and using ADS

What Forrest is referring to is the "flat rotational curve", the mainstream idea can't even explain many of the important phenomena we see today. In fact they name other phenomena to help cover their faults. I would like to know why the mainstream could be so full of holes yet be used in comparing other ATM ideas.

__________________
Just because it's complex doesn't mean it's true!

If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it!

Nereid,

These are the links that I could find related to observations of dark matter. As you can imagine such observations cannot be quantitative. They know how much matter would be needed to cause the galaxies to orbit each other at the observed rate. Besides these quantities, the dark matter needs to be distributed in the proper proportions within the galaxies to account for the orbital motions of disk stars within a spiral galaxy. My assertion is that they are probably looking at baryonic matter, i.e. galactic clouds of matter which could not always be distribute uniformly to account for the generally known orbital momentums of disk stars. Reading your comment above I added this comment. Orbiting clusters at close range concern my gravity formula. Galaxies at great distances concern both the gravity formula and the formulations of the Pan Theory of Relativity. Saw you comment above and added this comment. Orbiting galaxies with redshifts less than 1 would concern my gravity formula. For redshifts greater than 1 it would involve both my gravity formula and the Pan Theory of Relativity.

http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressr...6/20060821.htm
http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1024451
http://today.slac.stanford.edu/feature/darkmatter.asp
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/essay.html

My predictions that are related to my gravity theory are predictions numbers 6,7 9,10,13,14, 17, 54, 55, and 72.

Prediction #17 is the only quantitative prediction concerning gravity but it is not a small prediction. It is contrary to the Special Theory of Relativity concerning the speed of light and the existence of aether. It is my prediction stated in the beginning post. If this prediction were true, as I said before, it generally would eliminate the Special Theory of Relativity in favor of Lorentz transforms. I believe it would suggest the use of General relativity would not be accurate for long range evaluations, as well as the mathematics of the Big Bang model which require the use of long-range GR as its mathematical model.

respectfully, forrest