Jump to content

Dark Matter


MikeAL

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, MikeAL said:

I have provided theoretical  evidence from the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics though of gravity waves creating black holes without it involving the collapse of matter.

That is not evidence of black holes being formed from gravitational waves. It is a theoretical possibility. Like wormholes or whole holes.

Also, it is important to note that this is not creating any new mass or gravity. It is just the gravity that was already there.

And that is the same for your claims of matter created by gravity: the mass of the matter would have to come from the energy of the gravitational field. The total mass-energy would not change. So you aren't magically creating more gravity this way.

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

Also, it is important to note that this is not creating any new mass or gravity. It is just the gravity that was already there.

And that is the same for your claims of matter created by gravity: the mass of the matter would have to come from the energy of the gravitational field. The total mass-energy would not change. So you aren't magically creating more gravity this way

I agree. I have never suggested a violation of the conservation of energy. Any fold in gravity, as I explained earlier would be offset by a corresponding straightening of force lines or divergence of forcelines in spacetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

I agree. I have never suggested a violation of the conservation of energy. Any fold in gravity, as I explained earlier would be offset by a corresponding straightening of force lines or divergence of forcelines in spacetime.

So you are not creating more gravity, just redistributing it (if that makes any sense as a concept)  so I don't see how it solves the dark matter problem.

Also, if gravity were to create matter, it would have to create an equal amount of anti-matter, which would be detectable.

3 hours ago, MikeAL said:

In a large scale structure such as the sun, this struggle between matter's desire to pin gravity to a certain curvature and gravity's pull against this is reflected in entropy. Entropy causes the loss of mass through energy which weakens the curvature of space around that mass. Even without the Sun magically being removed, left to its own devices and given enough time the system would right itself and gravity could shake off the shackles of matter.

Are you saying that gravity would "wear out" over time? Any source for that claim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

So you are not creating more gravity, just redistributing it (if that makes any sense as a concept)  so I don't see how it solves the dark matter problem.

The dark matter problem is the measurements are suggesting there is more gravity than the observed matter can account for. I'm not adding gravity to the system. I am accounting for it by suggesting that there does not need to be any matter at all.  I think we are a fair way along to establishing that that is the case.

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Also, if gravity were to create matter, it would have to create an equal amount of anti-matter, which would be detectable.

The curvature of space time at the level that caused a matter precipitate may have ended at the time of the Big Bang. While matter creation could still be an ongoing process, I have never suggested it is the case - but that doesn't mean under the right experimental conditions it couldn't be again. 

9 minutes ago, Strange said:
3 hours ago, MikeAL said:

In a large scale structure such as the sun, this struggle between matter's desire to pin gravity to a certain curvature and gravity's pull against this is reflected in entropy. Entropy causes the loss of mass through energy which weakens the curvature of space around that mass. Even without the Sun magically being removed, left to its own devices and given enough time the system would right itself and gravity could shake off the shackles of matter.

Are you saying that gravity would "wear out" over time? Any source for that claim?

Wear out or flatten out, whichever word suits you best, but sure, let's see..  

"While the amount of mass loss is negligible, it isn't zero, and it has an effect on Earth's orbit. As the Sun loses mass its gravitational pull on the Earth weakens over time. As a result, Earth is receding slightly from the Sun." https://briankoberlein.com/2015/12/16/is-the-sun-losing-mass/ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

The dark matter problem is the measurements are suggesting there is more gravity than the observed matter can account for. I'm not adding gravity to the system. I am accounting for it by suggesting that there does not need to be any matter at all.  I think we are a fair way along to establishing that that is the case.

The extra matter is needed because the gravity is not accounted for by the visible mass. If you are not creating more gravity then is predicted by the visible mass (as needed to change the orbital speeds) then you are not solving the problem.

It sounds a bit like you are saying: there is more gravity in the system than we can account for from the mass; it comes from nowhere but just happens to be the right amount to match what we see. 

That sounds like magic to me.

Quote

"While the amount of mass loss is negligible, it isn't zero, and it has an effect on Earth's orbit. As the Sun loses mass its gravitational pull on the Earth weakens over time. As a result, Earth is receding slightly from the Sun." https://briankoberlein.com/2015/12/16/is-the-sun-losing-mass/ 

What!? That is not the same thing at all. The sun is losing mass and hence (because gravity is caused by mass) its gravity is weakening. 

If it were a cold lump of rock, then its gravity would not change over time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

"While the amount of mass loss is negligible, it isn't zero, and it has an effect on Earth's orbit. As the Sun loses mass its gravitational pull on the Earth weakens over time. As a result, Earth is receding slightly from the Sun." https://briankoberlein.com/2015/12/16/is-the-sun-losing-mass/ 

But that isn't gravity "wearing out" that is simply because some of the Sun's mass is radiated away and gravity being dependent on mass in the real world, its effects are lessened somewhat. 

The Moon is also moving away from the earth for different reasons, but still dependent on mass, which effects the gravity as a result of the earth water tides, and "pulls" the Moon into a slightly higher orbit. Again an example of the change in mass distribution, affecting gravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Strange said:

The extra matter is needed because the gravity is not accounted for by the visible mass. If you are not creating more gravity then is predicted by the visible mass (as needed to change the orbital speeds) then you are not solving the problem.

It sounds a bit like you are saying: there is more gravity in the system than we can account for from the mass; it comes from nowhere but just happens to be the right amount to match what we see. 

That sounds like magic to me.

I am creating more gravity then is predicted by the visible mass by suggesting that you do not need the visible mass to account for the gravity. I didn't say it comes from nowhere, I say it represents a folding of spacetime that has occurred independent of matter. It's not magical, just logical.

2 minutes ago, Strange said:
Quote

"While the amount of mass loss is negligible, it isn't zero, and it has an effect on Earth's orbit. As the Sun loses mass its gravitational pull on the Earth weakens over time. As a result, Earth is receding slightly from the Sun." https://briankoberlein.com/2015/12/16/is-the-sun-losing-mass/ 

What!? That is not the same thing at all. The sun is losing mass and hence (because gravity is caused by mass) its gravity is weakening. 

If it were a cold lump of rock, then its gravity would not change over time.

"The idea of heat death stems from the second law of thermodynamics, of which one version states that entropy tends to increase in an isolated system. From this, the hypothesis infers that if the universe lasts for a sufficient time, it will asymptotically approach a state where all energy is evenly distributed. In other words, according to this hypothesis, in nature there is a tendency to the dissipation(energy transformation) of mechanical energy (motion) into thermal energy; hence, by extrapolation, there exists the view that the mechanical movement of the universe will run down, as work is converted to heat, in time because of the second law." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

2 minutes ago, beecee said:
24 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

"While the amount of mass loss is negligible, it isn't zero, and it has an effect on Earth's orbit. As the Sun loses mass its gravitational pull on the Earth weakens over time. As a result, Earth is receding slightly from the Sun." https://briankoberlein.com/2015/12/16/is-the-sun-losing-mass/ 

But that isn't gravity "wearing out" that is simply because some of the Sun's mass is radiated away and gravity being dependent on mass in the real world, its effects are lessened somewhat. 

 

As the mass of the object decreases, the associated degree of curvature of space will reduce. The force lines will tend away from convergence toward a parallel (non-gravitational) state. Gravity - the curvature of space in such a manner that objects converge - will wear out.

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

The Moon is also moving away from the earth for different reasons, but still dependent on mass, which effects the gravity as a result of the earth water tides, and "pulls" the Moon into a slightly higher orbit. Again an example of the change in mass distribution, affecting gravity.

Yes, that is fine. Once again I do not claim that mass does not interact with gravity. It has it pinned at a certain curvature. That does not mean you cannot change the distance between two objects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

As the mass of the object decreases, the associated degree of curvature of space will reduce. The force lines will tend away from convergence toward a parallel (non-gravitational) state. Gravity - the curvature of space in such a manner that objects converge - will wear out.

Yes, less mass, less gravity: It's that simple, despite your obfuscating.

Quote

Yes, that is fine. Once again I do not claim that mass does not interact with gravity. It has it pinned at a certain curvature. That does not mean you cannot change the distance between two objects.

You seem to be using unfamiliar scientific words such as "pinned." Again simply put gravity/spacetime curvature is generally centered around matter/mass that has altered the geometry of that spacetime and which we interpret as gravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Yes, less mass, less gravity: It's that simple, despite your obfuscating.

Yes. Not obfuscating, just trying to explain in more detail an idea you seemed to be having difficulty with.

2 minutes ago, beecee said:
Quote

Yes, that is fine. Once again I do not claim that mass does not interact with gravity. It has it pinned at a certain curvature. That does not mean you cannot change the distance between two objects.

You seem to be using unfamiliar scientific words such as "pinned." Again simply put gravity/spacetime curvature is generally centered around matter/mass that has altered the geometry of that spacetime and which we interpret as gravity.

Yes, once again, just trying to make the idea clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

 

Yes. Not obfuscating, just trying to explain in more detail an idea you seemed to be having difficulty with.

Yes, once again, just trying to make the idea clearer.

What can be clearer then less matter, less spacetime curvature/gravity.

You may well then ask why, which is really unanswerable at this time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeAL said:

I am creating more gravity then is predicted by the visible mass by suggesting that you do not need the visible mass to account for the gravity. I didn't say it comes from nowhere, I say it represents a folding of spacetime that has occurred independent of matter. It's not magical, just logical.

This is getting surreal. You are just grasping at random straws.

Quote

As the mass of the object decreases, the associated degree of curvature of space will reduce. The force lines will tend away from convergence toward a parallel (non-gravitational) state. Gravity - the curvature of space in such a manner that objects converge - will wear out.

Why will the mass of a cold lump of rock decrease. You are just making stuff up now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Why will the mass of a cold lump of rock decrease. You are just making stuff up now.

Sorry, Strange. Not making stuff up. Just not explaining myself well at the moment. I have a cracking migraine.

You may disagree, but here is what they think will happen when the universe enters the heat death. It's from the same link I sent earlier.

From the Big Bang through the present day, matter and dark matter in the universe are thought to have been concentrated in stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters, and are presumed to continue to be so well into the future. Therefore, the universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium and objects can do physical work.[11], §VID. The decay time for a supermassive black hole of roughly 1 galaxy-mass (1011 solar masses) due to Hawking radiation is on the order of 10100 years,[12] so entropy can be produced until at least that time. After that time, the universe enters the so-called Dark Era, and is expected to consist chiefly of a dilute gas of photons and leptons.[11]§VIA With only very diffuse matter remaining, activity in the universe will have tailed off dramatically, with extremely low energy levels and extremely long time scales. 

1 hour ago, Strange said:
2 hours ago, MikeAL said:

I am creating more gravity then is predicted by the visible mass by suggesting that you do not need the visible mass to account for the gravity. I didn't say it comes from nowhere, I say it represents a folding of spacetime that has occurred independent of matter. It's not magical, just logical.

This is getting surreal. You are just grasping at random straws.

If we can establish that gravity can exist independent of matter, we can explain Dark Matter. It's as simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

You may disagree, but here is what they think will happen when the universe enters the heat death. It's from the same link I sent earlier.

Which doesn't support your claim that a rock would lose gravity over time.

40 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

If we can establish that gravity can exist independent of matter, we can explain Dark Matter. It's as simple as that.

Not really. You need to explain why there is this extra gravity and why it is distributed in such a way to produce the effects we see. (Dark matter explains both of these.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Not really. You need to explain why there is this extra gravity and why it is distributed in such a way to produce the effects we see. (Dark matter explains both of these.)

I'm reworking the Dark Energy post. It should be ready in a day or two. In it I will outline an explanation of why DMs there and why it's distributed the way it is. I suspect it has to do with the difference between G and g where G is 'my' Gravitational Constant (so we don't get off on the wrong foot), and g is the discreet gravity of matter.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:
59 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

You may disagree, but here is what they think will happen when the universe enters the heat death. It's from the same link I sent earlier.

Which doesn't support your claim that a rock would lose gravity over time.

I believe the premise would lie somewhere in vibronics, a rock being a polyatomic structure. Over time due to this interaction of vibrational energy and the effect on the nuclear-electron distance encroachment (if I have the mechanism right) quanta of energy are released, reducing mass. Energy down, mass down, gravity down.

3 hours ago, beecee said:

What can be clearer then less matter, less spacetime curvature/gravity.

You're right beecee. I will try and use simple and scientific language wherever possible. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

I believe the premise would lie somewhere in vibronics, a rock being a polyatomic structure.

Vibronics are a reggae band, not rock.

Quote

Over time due to this interaction of vibrational energy and the effect on the nuclear-electron distance encroachment (if I have the mechanism right) quanta of energy are released, reducing mass. Energy down, mass down, gravity down.

I suppose anything is possible if you make up a suitable buzzword-heavy "explanation".

4 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

I'm reworking the Dark Energy post. It should be ready in a day or two. In it I will outline an explanation of why DMs there and why it's distributed the way it is.

Why are you describing dark matter in a dark energy thread? Why not explain it here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Strange said:

Which says absolutely nothing to support your claims that a rock would lose mass over time.

The atoms in the rock are bonded and stretch and contract (jostle) relative to each other. The electronic bonds in adjacent atoms are pushed this way and that, in and out. This pulsing vibration affects the distance of the electron from its nucleus creating energy changes within the atom. The atom seeks to settle the jostling down by emitting energy.

"With emission, the molecule can start in various populated vibrational states, and finishes in the electronic ground state in one of many populated vibrational levels. The emission spectrum is more complicated than the absorption spectrum of the same molecule because there are more changes in vibrational energy level."

It's not about mass and gravity, I am trying to answer a question you are pursuing about the entropy. I don't claim to be an expert in vibronics.

 

Edited by MikeAL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

It's not about mass and gravity, I am trying to answer a question you are pursuing about the entropy.

I didn't mention entropy. I was asking how you think mass can "evaporate". Your waffle and quotes from an article you don't understand are not very convincing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeAL said:

In that case the answer is entropy. If you would like to quarrel it, there are a lot of scientists I'm sure would take you on.

No. It is your claim, you have the burden of proof. Have any science said that mass disappears over time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Strange said:
5 hours ago, MikeAL said:

In that case the answer is entropy. If you would like to quarrel it, there are a lot of scientists I'm sure would take you on.

No. It is your claim, you have the burden of proof. Have any science said that mass disappears over time?

Once again, I direct you to the link on the heat death of the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

"Proposals about the final state of the universe depend on the assumptions made about its ultimate fate, and these assumptions have varied considerably over the late 20th century and early 21st century. In a hypothesized "open" or "flat" universe that continues expanding indefinitely, a heat death is expected to occur.[1] If the cosmological constant is zero, the universe will approach absolute zero temperature over a very long timescale. However, if the cosmological constant is positive, as appears to be the case in recent observations, the temperature will asymptote to a non-zero, positive value and the universe will approach a state of maximum entropy.[8]

The "heat death" situation could be avoided if there is a method or mechanism to regenerate hydrogen atoms from radiation, dark energy or other sources in order to avoid a gradual running down of the universe due to the conversion of matter into energy and heavier elements in stellar processes.[9][10] "

 

So let me ask you a question. What happens to mass when matter is converted into energy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

So let me ask you a question. What happens to mass when matter is converted into energy?

Multiple members have provided you with helpful links in this thread that would answer your question.

Strange didn't mention matter, he said mass. You have a habit of misquoting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

Quote

Just as the relativistic mass of an isolated system is conserved through time, so also is its invariant mass.This property allows the conservation of all types of mass in systems, and also conservation of all types of mass in reactions where matter is destroyed (annihilated), leaving behind the energy that was associated with it (which is now in non-material form, rather than material form). Matter may appear and disappear in various reactions, but mass and energy are both unchanged in this process.

 

Quote

Although mass cannot be converted to energy,[21] in some reactions matter particles (which contain a form of rest energy) can be destroyed and the energy released can be converted to other types of energy that are more usable and obvious as forms of energy—such as light and energy of motion (heat, etc.). However, the total amount of energy and mass does not change in such a transformation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

Once again, I direct you to the link on the heat death of the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

"Proposals about the final state of the universe depend on the assumptions made about its ultimate fate, and these assumptions have varied considerably over the late 20th century and early 21st century. In a hypothesized "open" or "flat" universe that continues expanding indefinitely, a heat death is expected to occur.[1] If the cosmological constant is zero, the universe will approach absolute zero temperature over a very long timescale. However, if the cosmological constant is positive, as appears to be the case in recent observations, the temperature will asymptote to a non-zero, positive value and the universe will approach a state of maximum entropy.[8]

The "heat death" situation could be avoided if there is a method or mechanism to regenerate hydrogen atoms from radiation, dark energy or other sources in order to avoid a gradual running down of the universe due to the conversion of matter into energy and heavier elements in stellar processes.[9][10] "

Again, that doesn't say anything about the mass or gravity of a cold, dark rock decreasing with time. 

Quote

So let me ask you a question. What happens to mass when matter is converted into energy?

This is a very confused question. It is mass and energy that can be converted into one another. What happens to the matter depends on what mass is converted into energy. For example, in the case of a candle, the wax will be converted to (mainly) carbon dioxide and water, and small amount of the mass will be converted to light (the total mass of the CO2 and H2O will be less than the mass of the wax and oxygen used to burn it). In the case of an electron and positron, the two particles will disappear completely and the energy will be given to a pair of photons.

But surely you know all this as you are attempting to produce a new scientific theory ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.