# DanMP

Senior Members

305

1. ## Dark matter relativity (a theory of relativity based on DM)

So far in agreement with my model. Really? Various properties that don’t match? We know very little about DM. How can you be so sure that this rejection property is not present? I asked: You didn't answer.
2. ## Dark matter relativity (a theory of relativity based on DM)

I corrected to bump instead of bounce. Anyway, electromagnetic force can cause both attraction and repulsion, so definitely it's not that, but it can be something to cause a repulsion. Why not? It would contradict something we observed? How are neutrino doing it? In my model a repulsion is needed, otherwise DM particles that stick (and buildup) to a fast moving baryonic particle would remain there after the particle stops, which is not the case.
3. ## Dark matter relativity (a theory of relativity based on DM)

Normal matter particles have more means to interact with each other, like electromagnetic force, etc. DM particles appear not able to do more than bump into each other. More important, in order to have rotation, you have to have an angular momentum ... Speaking of DM rotation and BHs: due to extremely high densities near a BH, DM particles are acquiring angular momentum from normal matter, so the darkmosphere rotates, more or less. You know it as frame dragging ...
4. ## Dark matter relativity (a theory of relativity based on DM)

I was talking about DM, not baryonic matter. DM is, in my model, like a gas. Always. My explanation wasn't about BH formation. It was about what would happen to DM in such a process.
5. ## Dark matter relativity (a theory of relativity based on DM)

Still, it wouldn't happen at once, preventing DM to congregate around the BH. On the contrary, in the process of BH's formation, DM would buildup around the massive object, get pressed/compressed really hard by the gravitationally attracted layers of DM above, and, when the gravitational pull & the pressure get big enough, DM particles would be gradually swallowed by the, now fully formed, BH.
6. ## Dark matter relativity (a theory of relativity based on DM)

As a (correct) topographic map is not invalid, nor is spacetime. They are both useful tools, but not real representations of reality. What postulate refers to spacetime? GR math, as I said, may be used, for now. I even used it at my first prediction. I wouldn't call it time travel, but ok, forward time travel is possible. I couldn't write everything in one post. It was already too long ... Even now, I'm reluctant to write about them, because I would have to reveal (and debate) my DM based model of gravity first. For now, just use/consider the GR model as a tool. I'll reveal the real meaning (in my interpretation) one day. I'm not sure that DM can be "swallowed". I didn't mention it specifically, but I wrote about it where I said that we rely on atoms. I consider it real, as predicted by relativity. To explain more, yes, maybe, but why further predictions? There are more than enough presented. I think that for a speculations forum is enough. I just can't do (much) more. Maybe someone better than me will continue my work and/or some predictions will be tested and confirmed ...
7. ## Dark matter relativity (a theory of relativity based on DM)

DM is inferred from observations and is considered real by most of the physicists. It isn't just a placeholder for the explanation of things that cannot be explained by GR. If not real, why this hunt for DM detection? Furthermore, if DM is not real, GR is wrong. Are you claiming that GR is wrong?!? Why not? What exactly it would not explain? GR works just fine if DM is real ... and my idea/theory/model is using this DM to make relativity intuitive. There are no differences in results. The difference is that with this DM model is easier to understand GR and to make new predictions.
8. ## Dark matter relativity (a theory of relativity based on DM)

You got it wrong. I wrote: and I meant that at the centre the gravity may be zero, but the layers of DM above, where the gravity is present, assure maximum DM pressure/density at the centre (lowest clock rate).
9. ## Dark matter relativity (a theory of relativity based on DM)

Relativity + the fact that DM is attracted by massive objects (see Bullet Cluster). I repeat, do you know any reason why a particle attracted by a massive object would not tend to go towards it and accumulate near the object like an atmosphere? By the way, how can you tell that a planet has an atmosphere, using just its gravity (not absorption/emission of light or any other interaction with ordinary matter)? I don't think you/we can. The atmosphere gravitational pull is assimilated with the one of the planet. The same (in fact worse) is with DM atmosphere. If there is a gas-like dark matter in the galaxy, the propriety of DM particles to suffer gravitational attraction is enough evidence for this gas to accumulate near Earth like an atmosphere, with its pressure/density increasing towards the centre. The large increase in density you mentioned (by the way, why this increase in density towards the centre of galaxy is possible, but the increase towards the centre of the Earth is not?!?) does have effects, but I didn't investigate the matter to be able to point them. On the other hand, here, near Earth, we tested and re-tested, that's why I am pretty confident in what I claimed. Yes, we'll need to explain dark matter, but this isn't something new ... And, in a way, this is the beauty of physics/science: the quest of understanding nature never ends ...
10. ## Dark matter relativity (a theory of relativity based on DM)

I don't understand what you mean with Lagrange points. I know what they are, but I don't get the issue with them. Linear or one-dimensional, I think it is the same thing. The same (Lorentz) transformations may be applied, as you can see in the link I gave. The reason for "maximum density at the centre of the Earth" is not the gravity at the centre, but the pressure exerted by the layers of dark matter atmosphere above. That's why my model is better. With GR is counter-intuitive. You are welcome Many thanks for your kind words and constructive questions. Thank you!
11. ## Dark matter relativity (a theory of relativity based on DM)

DM was not directly detected, so we don't know for sure how much DM is around the Earth. Plus, how can we make a distinction between the gravitational pull of a planet and the pull of the planet + its darkmosphere? In this respect, I think that there is much more DM, and the one you mentioned as increasing in density near the center of the galaxy, is the one not clearly associated with massive objects. I think that, near massive objects, DM density depends more on the mass of the object and the distance to it, than on the galaxy DM that surrounds the object's darkmosphere. In my opinion/theory the best dark matter (density) detector we can have is an atomic clock. Well, in all models DM interacts gravitationally, so what do you think it may prevent DM to be more abundant/dense around massive objects attracting it gravitationally than far from them? I didn't say (exactly) that. DM density is increasing towards the centre. Anyway, the font there is bigger not because I intended to be, as being something important ... it was just some editor glitch. I noticed 2 instances but I didn't bother to edit the post. Sorry.
12. ## Dark matter relativity (a theory of relativity based on DM)

Sorry, I had to open/start the laptop to answer your question. For Strange was enough the tablet. Well, the experiment proposed by twin paradox was not performed. Still, we kind of confirmed it using atomic clocks on airplanes and satellites flying round the Earth ... There are no perfect inertial frames. There is always some rotation. Anyway, the reason for needing the laptop is to post a link where the Sagnac effect in the case of a flexible loop of optical fiber moving like a conveyor belt (search those words in the text) is considered as: "essentially a one-dimensional problem". I think that my tower-airplane experiment can be considered as a one-dimensional problem as well. So what? My theory agrees with both SR and GR results. You should read my post ...
13. ## Dark matter relativity (a theory of relativity based on DM)

Besides gravitational time dilation? What other effects I should expect?
14. ## Dark matter relativity (a theory of relativity based on DM)

English is not my first language, so I'm not going to discuss semantic. What motion? We are (almost) static in our darkmosphere. And with c constant (as explained) + time dilation acknowledged (and explained), what experiments do you think I should consider as possible problems for my "ether theory"? By the way, ether was an invention, while "my" DM was inferred from observations ... The first prediction has some numbers. For the second one is easy to estimate (and detect) the difference in elapsed time between no movement and 30 km/s movement ... For the rest it's a bit harder.
15. ## Quick LaTeX Tutorial

The preview function in the editor didn't work correctly. I only found out that the code was good after posting the whole message ...

17. ## Classical explanation for the Fizeau experiment & for Sagnac effect in materials

Long time ago (late 80's), attending a course about relativity at the university, when the Fizeau experiment was presented as an experimental proof for relativity, I thought: "this can be explained in another way, because, clearly, the number of molecules encountered by the ray of light propagating in the same direction as the water stream is smaller than the number encountered by the ray of light opposite to the direction of the water stream", but the course went on, compelling evidence was presented, so I didn't pursue my idea ... until the autumn of 2011, when "faster than light neutrino" news shook relativity. I learned next year that OPERA results were wrong (due to equipment failures), but my explanation is not, in any way, confronting relativity, so it isn't a problem. I mentioned "faster than light neutrino" only because it was the trigger for this alternative explanation (and much more ...). I think that a non-relativistic explanation (one not using Lorentz transformations) is possible, because the speeds involved are far smaller than c ... and needed, because such an explanation (if proved correct) may become very useful in understanding how light travels through transparent materials. 1. Fizeau experiment: (see Fizeau_experiment on Wikipedia) I will not analyze the actual experiment. I will analyze an imaginary, simplified one. Let's consider a tube of length d, in which water flows with constant speed v. The light propagates through the water in the same direction, from A to B. If v=0 light travels from A to B in the time: t0 =d/(c/n)=nd/c (1) (where c is the speed of light in vacuum and n the refractive index of the water) From Raman spectroscopy (see Raman_spectroscopy on Wikipedia), I learned that light appears to interact with the electron cloud of the molecules, basically as follows: an incident photon excites the sample. This excitation puts the molecule into a virtual energy state for a short time before the photon is emitted, most of the time with the same energy as the one absorbed (Rayleigh scattering), but sometimes different (Stokes and anti-Stokes Raman scattering). So, it is possible/plausible to consider that light travels in transparent materials with the speed c between atomic electrons (where is "vacuum") and is delayed only as a result of the time lost when interacting with the electrons in the atoms/molecules. My reasoning is that the electron hit by the photon absorbs it, changing its speed/trajectory, and if it remains in the system (atom/molecule) and cannot reach another stable state, the electron will have to emit the photon as it was, regaining its initial stable trajectory/state. All these happen very very quickly but, due to the large number of electrons/interactions, light travels slower in (transparent) materials than in vacuum. It is logical to assume that if the energy of the photon is bigger, it may take a little longer until the electron, together with the system (atom/molecule), can "decide" (by trial and error) that it can not escape, nor use the energy to reach another stable state, and re-emits the photon, and this is consistent with experimental evidence: red light travels faster than blue light in the same material (see chromatic dispersion). I have to state that the absorption described above is in fact a failed absorption or quasi-absorption, because it is always and very quickly followed by emission. So this is not frequency dependent as normal absorption. Any photon can suffer this quasi-absorption. In my opinion, the electrons in the atoms are still revolving around the nuclei, like in the Bohr model, but their orbits are disturbed by these quasi-absorptions and thus, the best way to manage them is to use the wavefunctions. If you don't agree with my interpretation and/or consider that the atoms/molecules, not their electrons, are absorbing the photons, that's fine too, the demonstration below is still valid, because you can consider the electron/atom/molecule entering into a virtual energy state and then re-emitting the photon, like in Raman scattering above ... but I prefer my interpretation, because it offers better insights I know that this is not the mainstream view, but it is based on accepted facts (it is accepted that electrons, together with the rest of the atom, can absorb and emit photons) and yields good results (it can explain without relativity or aether the Fizeau experiment and Sagnac effect in materials, as you'll see below). Refraction experiments can be made to further test this approach (see at the end). I'm not the only one to consider an absorption/re-emission theory/idea (probably not even the first, although I did it since late 80s). Even our colleagues Strange and swansont wrote something similar (follow the links, especially the second). My model may also explain Huygens proposition (see Huygens–Fresnel principle) that every point to which a luminous disturbance reaches becomes a source of a spherical wave, because the electrons are in constant motion, so the direction of the re-emitted photon is (more or less) random. The photons exhibit wave–particle duality, so Fresnel principle of interference assures the rectilinear propagation of light. In my mind/model, the wavefront is associated with the moving photons and, in most cases (n>1), their speed is the same with the phase velocity of light in the medium (see more about this at the end). With the above model/approach considered: t0=d/c+N0τ0 (2) (where N0 is the average number of interactions for "one" photon between A and B when v=0 and τ0 is the average time for one interaction, the time between the absorption of the photon and re-emission). Probably the distance covered in vacuum (between electrons) from A to B is not exactly d, but it is a good approximation (see the final result). For v>0 light travels from A to B in: t1=(d-N1vτ1)/c+N1τ1 (3) N1vτ1 is the distance light travels with/inside the atoms/molecules, making the travel in vacuum shorter. This is very important and shows how light is entrained by the matter. N1τ1 represents the delay due to interactions, and N1 is smaller than N0, because from the moment that light starts from A and the moment of arrival in B, some water flowed off the tube, so there were less interactions. The volume of water in static example is Sd, where S is the area of a section in the tube. Svt1 is the volume of water that flowed from the tube before the light arrived at B. If in the volume Sd we had N0 interactions, in Sd-Svt1 we expect to have: N1=S(d-vt1)N0/Sd=N0(1-vt1/d) (4) So, from (3) and (4) we get: t1=d/c+N1τ1(1-v/c)=d/c+N0(1-vt1/d)τ1(1-v/c) (5) From (2) and (1) we have: N0τ0=t0-d/c=nd/c-d/c=(n-1)d/c We can consider/approximate: τ1 = τ0because the speed v of the water in the tube is far smaller than c, so the redshift/blueshift is too small to influence τ (or n : in the relativistic approach there is also only one refractive index considered, neglecting redshift/blueshift), and time dilation is also too small at those speeds and can be neglected, so: N0τ1=N0τ0=(n-1)d/c (6) From (5) and (6) we have: t1=d/c+(n-1)(d/c)(1-vt1/d)(1-v/c) that becomes: ct1/d=1+(n-1)(1-vt1/d)(1-v/c) and then: ct1/d+(vt1/d)(n-1)(1-v/c)=1+(n-1)(1-v/c) so: $t_1=\frac{1+(n-1)(1-v/c)}{c/d+(v/d)(n-1)(1-v/c)}$ Light appears to travel from A to B with the speed V=d/t1 and using (7) we get: So, the final result is: $V=\frac{c}{n}+v(1-\frac{1}{n^2-n(n-1)v/c})\approx \frac{c}{n}+v(1-\frac{1}{n^2})$ (v<<c, so n(n-1)v/c →0) This result, with n(n-1)v/c, is a better approximation (I calculated in Excel with real values - see Compare-Fizeau.xls attached) than the one obtained using special relativity (see here): $V-\frac{c}{n}=\frac{v(1-\frac{1}{n^2})}{1+v/cn}$ 2. Sagnac effect in materials Using the same approach as above, it is very easy to explain Sagnac effect in materials without relativity. Let's consider a fiber-optic conveyor and one segment of the fiber-optic: The segment has the length d and is moving to the right with the speed v. In each segment like this, there are two beams of light, one traveling from A to B and the other from B to A. Let's analyze their travel time: a. Photons are moving from A towards B In the (inertial) laboratory frame we can see that from the moment they started, in A, the right end of the segment, B, moved, with the speed v, prolonging their travel: If t1 is the photons travel time through the segment (from A to B'), the distance they covered is d+vt1. Considering, like in Fizeau experiment, that photons travel through the transparent material with the speed c in the vacuum between electrons and suffer a great number (N) of absorptions followed by re-emissions, that take in average a time τ1 each, and during this time they are carried with/inside the atoms/molecules with the speed of the segment, v, shortening their travel in vacuum from d+vt1 to d+vt1-Nvτ1 , we get: $t_1=\frac{d+vt_1-Nv\tau_1}{c}+N\tau_1$ making $t_1=\frac{d-Nv\tau_1+cN\tau_1}{c-v}=\frac{d}{c-v}+N\tau_1$ b. Photons are moving from B towards A In the same laboratory frame we can see that from the moment they started, in B, the left end of the segment, A, moved, with the speed v, shortening their travel: If t2 is the photons travel time through the segment (from B to A'), the distance they covered is d-vt2. Considering, like above, the absorptions and re-emissions and that the photons are carried backwards with/inside the electrons with the speed of the segment, v, lengthening their travel in vacuum from d-vt2 to d-vt2+Nvτ2 , we get: $t_2=\frac{d-vt_2+Nv\tau_2}{c}+N\tau_2$ making $t_2=\frac{d+Nv\tau_2+cN\tau_2}{c+v}=\frac{d}{c+v}+N\tau_2$ I considered that the number of absorptions/re-emissions, N, is the same for both ways because it was the very same segment, with the same number of molecules, etc., traveled from end to end in both instances. Furthermore, τ1 and τ2 are in fact identical, because there is no redshift or blueshift (the emitter is attached to the fiber-optic) and time dilation is not only too small, but also identical, because there are the same molecules moving with the same speed v<<c. So, for each segment we have a time difference between the opposing beams: $\Delta t=t_1-t_2=\frac{d}{c-v}+N\tau_1-\frac{d}{c+v}-N\tau_2=d\frac{c+v-(c-v)}{(c-v)(c+v)}=\frac{2vd}{c^2(1-\frac{v^2}{c^2})}\approx \frac{2vd}{c^2}$ If we add the contributions of all the segments that form the fiber-optic loop, we get ΔT=2vL/c2, where L is the length of the loop, and this is the generalized formula for the Sagnac effect, independent on the refractive index of the material and identical with the one obtained using special relativity (search the case of a flexible loop of optical fiber moving like a conveyor belt). As I wrote in the beginning, we should have such a theory for Fizeau and Sagnac, because the speeds involved are far from relativistic. And this approach may be also useful in the understanding of nonlinear optics, like frequency doubling: if an electron is hit by another photon before it re-emits the first one, and still remains in the system (atom, molecule, etc.), it may emit only one photon, with the sum of the absorbed photons energies, in order to regain it's initial stable trajectory/state. This particle approach is not necessarily better than the wave approach. In fact, for a better understanding, both should be employed. See here: At the microscale, an electromagnetic wave's phase velocity is slowed in a material because the electric field creates a disturbance in the charges of each atom (primarily the electrons) [...]The charges thus radiate their own electromagnetic wave that is at the same frequency, but usually with a phase delay, [...]. The light wave traveling in the medium is the macroscopic superposition (sum) of all such contributions in the material: the original wave plus the waves radiated by all the moving charges. This wave is typically a wave with the same frequency but shorter wavelength than the original, leading to a slowing of the wave's phase velocity. Most of the radiation from oscillating material charges will modify the incoming wave, changing its velocity. However, some net energy will be radiated in other directions or even at other frequencies (see scattering – including Raman, as I wrote …). Depending on the relative phase of the original driving wave and the waves radiated by the charge motion, there are several possibilities: If the electrons emit a light wave which is 90° out of phase with the light wave shaking them, it will cause the total light wave to travel slower. This is the normal refraction of transparent materials like glass or water, and corresponds to a refractive index which is real and greater than 1.[24] If the electrons emit a light wave which is 270° out of phase with the light wave shaking them, it will cause the wave to travel faster. This is called "anomalous refraction", and is observed close to absorption lines [this is logical with my model: when the electron gets very near to anoher stable state, it is hard to „decide” that it is not quite there and go back, re-emitting the photon with a bigger delay/phase difference] (typically in infrared spectra), with X-rays in ordinary materials and with radio waves in Earth's ionosphere. It corresponds to a permittivity less than 1, which causes the refractive index to be also less than unity and the phase velocity of light greater than the speed of light in vacuum c (note that the signal velocity is still less than c, as discussed above). If the response is sufficiently strong and out-of-phase, the result is a negative value of permittivity and imaginary index of refraction, as observed in metals or plasma.[24] If the electrons emit a light wave which is 180° out of phase with the light wave shaking them, it will destructively interfere with the original light to reduce the total light intensity. This is light absorption in opaque materials and corresponds to an imaginary refractive index. [...] For most materials at visible-light frequencies, the phase is somewhere between 90° and 180°, corresponding to a combination of both refraction and absorption. In the Wikipedia article I quote above, the charges (primarily the electrons) in the material are not (apparently) absorbing photons in order to re-emit them. They are just "shaken" back and forth at the same frequency, and then radiate their own electromagnetic wave that is at the same frequency, but usually with a phase delay. I think that without photons being absorbed, it’s like producing photons/energy without consuming anything … so there must be absorption followed by emission, like I proposed. As I mentioned when I presented the model, it is possible to test it further. One way is to fill a chamber (with transparent walls) with different quantities of various gases and measure the refractive index. The first goal is to see if the total time delay, Nτ (=(n-1)d/c), is directly proportional to the number of molecules in the chamber (at the same temperature). Then, after measuring all the gases separately, one can mix them (the ones not reacting with each other), carefully measuring the quantities, and test if the measured refractive index is equal with the one predicted using the model (n=1+( N1τ1+ N2τ2+ N3τ3+ N4τ4+ …)c/d).
18. ## Quick LaTeX Tutorial

Test t_1=\frac{1+(n-1)(1-v/c)}{c/d+(v/d)(n-1)(1-v/c)} $t_1=\frac{1+(n-1)(1-v/c)}{c/d+(v/d)(n-1)(1-v/c)}$ $t_1=\frac{1+(n-1)(1-v/c)}{c/d+(v/d)(n-1)(1-v/c)}$ What I'm doing wrong? Please help. Ok, I get it, it worked but the preview didn't. Why?
19. ## Generating Gravity

I was tired when I wrote that ... and now, rethinking it, I realized that the outer flow, all around the rim, would push the paper off. The paper would hold better only if you make few holes in the tube walls, so that the outflow would be directed through that holes and not/less around the rim. Anyway, the best suggestion is the one with the strip of paper and the tweezers, but, on the other hand, you seem to lost interest in proving your contraption and keen to write what
20. ## Generating Gravity

Another suggestion: make few small holes in the middle of the sheet of paper you used in this arrangement and try again, with the holes positioned at the center of the tube. In this way the air flow should be reestablished and the paper should hold much better than without the holes. This would be a conclusive proof that the air flow created by the vortex is pushing the paper towards the tube and not the gravity "generated" by your contraption. LE: maybe you didn't understand what I meant with the vortex and the air flow, so I repeat: the wheel inside the tube, rotating fast, makes the air in the tube to rotate (the vortex) and then the centrifugal force pushes the air towards the wall, creating low pressure in the middle (along the rotation axis) and high pressure near the wall. That's why the air is sucked in in the middle and flows out along the walls (the air flow).
21. ## Generating Gravity

Ok, the camera sucks, but how about your eyes? Did you try with smoke? What did you see? It entered through the middle as I said? Maybe you can use, instead of smoke, a small strip of paper. Hold it using tweezers, put it near the center and see if it is sucked in. Then put it near the edge and see if it is pushed outwards. No need to invest in a "vacuum" chamber. In the last video, the paper didn't stay, probably because the air flow created by the vortex was interrupted, so nothing pushed the paper towards the tube, meaning that there is no gravitational pull. Try with the strip of paper. It should be conclusive.
22. ## Generating Gravity

In fact this isn't true, sorry. The air going towards the tube would overflow. The same would happen with a sealed/blocked tube. The air would still flow towards the tube but not enter in it, just go over the edges, repelled by the air inside. This, of course, it would happen if there is a gravitational pull, but there is not, there is just a vortex inside the tube, sucking air through the middle and letting it out along the walls, as I explained earlier. The board and the smoke I suggested should solve the "puzzle".
23. ## Generating Gravity

The contraption was clamped. The same was the paper, hanging few inches in front of the tube. Yes, the paper moved (otherwise why do you think I wrote what I wrote?) and the movements were clearly related to the (speed of) rotation (you could hear the noise).
24. ## Generating Gravity

or the paper would gradually return to vertical position, as the air is reaching an equilibrium point ... Did you read my smoke proposition? What do you think of it? I don't understand what you mean by that. Please explain.
25. ## Generating Gravity

Not in the second video, posted here. My recommendation was made for that arrangement, as you can see here.
×