DanMP

Few indications towards my approach are mentioned in my Fizeau/Sagnac explanation. Maybe we should move & continue the discussion there, although I think it can wait. By the way, the F/S explanation is valid, no matter who (the electron in the atom or the atom/molecule as a whole) does the "absorption"+emission. Maybe I'll get back to this subject and answer your questions in a dedicated thread (my theory about the nature of light), but only when I'll finish with the main subject here. Regarding the above discussed proprieties/behavior of DM particles, take them as defined like that. If the theoretical tests I mentioned above will confirm my predictions, then I'll get back to the subject. Until then it would be a waste of time. As I said to Strange, let's wait for my new input (theoretical tests). Maybe they'll prove me wrong ...

Why not? My Fizeau/Sagnac explanation is correct (see the math), consistent with the observations and useful in understanding how photons travel through matter. In the beginning it was included in this theory, but I decided to split them. You like it or not, dark matter will change many things/theories. The above is only the tip of the iceberg ... I have much more. And this is the way to do it, step by step, but interconnected, consistent with each other and with observations. I wrote in that conversation enough. Just read it. In short: the idea that the atom as a whole is absorbing the photon and then it transfers the energy to one electron in the cloud (in order to raise it to a higher orbital) implies that the energy can be shared to more than one electron, and this wasn't, in my opinion, really demonstrated. On the other hand, if you read my Fizeau/Sagnac explanation, you may see why I think that individual electrons in the electronic cloud are receiving the photons and then absorb them (together with the rest of the atom) in a trial and error process. When I say "together with the rest of the atom", I mean that momentum (and some energy?) may be transferred from the receiving electron to the rest of the atom by virtual photons, as you can read in Wikipedia: Absorption + re-emission is something different than electromagnetic interaction. It doesn't necessarily imply electromagnetic forces. In Compton scattering there are such forces, that's why a charge or a magnetic moment is needed. Remember "2. Scattering cross section" and the magnetic moment/field? In my opinion, the photon, with its electromagnetic field, can reject a charged particle (Compton scattering) OR it can attract it or just neither of two (the absorption). With a neutral DM particle it would be always absorption, promptly followed by re-emission, due to conservation laws. That's why DM is "dark" (invisible, perfectly transparent).

Yes, technically the atom absorbs/emits the light, but, as you may see in this conversation, I think that the electron in the atom receives the photon and then absorbs its energy and momentum together with the rest of the atom. More about my reasons for this approach you may find in my other "speculation". I didn't know about "Neutron-photon scattering in the early universe" and I began to read the article you offered. Please read "2. Scattering cross section" and see that it is about magnetic moment/field ... Why should a DM particle have an magnetic moment? This wouldn't imply interactions with normal matter? I don't have time to read more, at least not now. Thank you anyway for the link. I found in wikipedia that: That's why, in my opinion, we can have Compton-like scattering off neutrons, like we have off electrons, but we can not have Compton-like scattering off DM particles.

You didn't accept my answers (e.g. math is the same, at least for Lorentz transformation, when the invariance of c is explained instead of postulated) so, I agree, it would be pointless. Let's wait for my new input (theoretical tests). Maybe they'll prove me wrong ...

The "existing definition"? Really? Important is to be consistent with observations, and I think my model is. Because DM particles are neutral, unlike electrons in atoms, where we have both absorption/re-emission and Compton scattering.

You should know (you read the material I posted here, while they didn't, because they don't accept "speculations", nor links to them) that my theory is not really similar to Lorentz Ether Theory. I didn't invent dark matter ... And my gas-like DM model is not physically impossible, as you may see in the link above. I don't think that my theory is a waste of time. A waste of time, and money, may be the mainstream approach to understand/detect dark matter ... My theory can be fairly easy tested, and not only practical but also theoretical, as you could see in the first prediction. I have ideas for more such tests, as you may see soon.

Beecee, thank you for your interest in my theory. You found it "superfluous at best and totally contrived at worst", but this may change with time. Einstein relativity was hard to grasp/accept to many people, and still is, after more than a century ... Experimental confirmation imposed it, and this may also be the case for my theory ... I asked "expert opinion of others" from another forum, regarding the change in math if the invariance of c is explained instead of postulated, and they backed my opinion, so my theory may be as valid as Einstein's, because the math is the same. I'll be back with more input, after I'll study the material offered here. From what I read so far, gas-like DM seems a good idea ...

I appreciate that you replied, but your input is not quite what I expected, especially the last part, with you own "theory" ... I think I covered this problem where I wrote: Thank you Strange for your input. What do you think about my "Classical explanation for the Fizeau experiment & for Sagnac effect in materials" above? I thought that you would like it, because:

There is DM there, between gas particles, but not able to refract ("gravitational lensing"). There are no DM layers of increasing densities, like around a galaxy, or a star. Yes. We know that already. That is one of the many reasons why your idea can't work. If weak interactions are possible, DM particles can collide, almost like gas molecules in air, resisting to compression. Remember that closer to the massive object the speeds are higher, due to the conversion of the potential energy in kinetic energy. The atom is not an elementary particle ... Again, not magic, just physics. Ok, thank you very much. Also thanks for the information you provided, for your time and for your interest.

You did, as you can see in Wikipedia: Two in one strike 1. DM traveled with the stars of the galaxies, being near (possibly coincident with) the visible galaxies. In my model DM atmospheres travel with massive objects (stars, planets) ... 2. DM particles are weakly interacting.

It does happen. One particle alone cannot absorb a photon. See here why. If in the "equation": x = y + a + 1 , a is postulated as being 2 or derived/explained as being 2 (from 1+1), the equation is, in both instances: x = y + 3 (I hope you agree). How it could be different? Of course, the GR math is much more complicated, and it involves geometry, but still, if this is the only change (and it is, mathematically speaking) the math and the results are the same. There is no Lorentz violation. Ignore gravitational potential/time dilation, by considering the satellite as flying at the same level with the clock at the pole. The clock on the satelite would fall behind the clock on the ground, as we know from H-K exp., so we can tell which clock was moving. If this is so, please show the mathematical proof. I did. You do. Why should I? I entered the forum today, mainly to say that a simulation (regarding the DM density around a galaxy) is not an absolute proof. It is just an indication. There are probably dozens of competing simulations, with different input parameters, all more or less consistent with what we observe (as there are more, competing, Big-Bang theories). There is always possible to make yet another simulation with good results. Another indication, for me, is how the distribution of DM should be, in order to be consistent with observations ... and it seems to fit my model. By the way, it is possible that the simulations are meant for galaxies just because we only have enough observational proofs for galaxies (inferred from star rotations) ... and not because a similar distribution is not possible around any other massive object ... Because the haloes formed over millions of years at the same time as the normal matter condensed to form galaxies. There is no mechanism to slow dark matter enough to form small scale structures. (Collisionless and dissipationaless, remember.) So younger galaxies are not having the same or similar DM distribution as the older ones? For me it's enough to have increasing DM densities from outside towards the gravity center. I don't know if collisions are important or not to my model. On the other hand, DM particles are having mass, so if they have no volume (point-like), they would have infinite density ... This is nonsense. So they probably have volume and collide.

Bulet Cluster drags its darkmosphere/halo on its orbit/trajectory ... With the moon yes, like the moon no. I wrote about angular momentum and why dark matter particles don't have it like ordinary matter. How do you/we know this? Please provide a link to an experimental proof. You tell me. That's what you had preciously claimed. "the rotation being around the Sun, together with the Earth." How else could the particles be at rest (on average) with respect to the earth? Earth's darkmosphere is attached to Earth (somehow similar with Bullet Cluster halo to Bulet Cluster), so it is moving "around the Sun together with the Earth". The Sun's darkmosphere is static in the non-rotating frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the Sun. So consider one molecule alone in a big enough enclosure to ensure that it'll not bump in anything. Also, the enclosure must block any incoming radiation. Again, this is not for practical purposes. It is just in order to see why the speed of light in vacuum is invariant,

I wrote: If you know a way, please explain. We can tell, using nothing but atomic clocks, that GPS satellites are moving, while someone at a pole is stationary. Time dilation experiments are confirming it. We can have both if we realize that our measuring tools (atomic clocks, meter sticks) are also influenced, as I explained. I'm still waiting for the answer you're avoiding. The links you gave are not what I asked. I already explained, including in this post, why my math and results are the same with the current relativity math and results.

I really don't get your point. I explained why a planet (it may be alo a star or any massive object) rotation about its axis does not create a significant rotation of its darkmosphere: the drag is extremely small (see the volleyball net analogy), while a planet can carry its darkmosphere around the star due to gravity. I wrote: So you want me to copy/paste it here? What you suggest, the photon should zigzag between the huge number of DM particles in its path? How? You see, Nature is not a computer program. Particles are not instructed what do do by a software, reacting instantly. So, absorption is a trial and error process (as I demonstrated using Fizeau & Sagnac experimental results + math). Due to conservation of both momentum and energy, DM particles are always and promptly re-emitting the photons as they were, so it seems that there is no interaction at all. What "darkmosphere" is rotating with the sun? We are (almost) static in Earth's darkmosphere, so the orbital speed around the Sun does not influence us on Earth. If you didn't get this from my first post (the second prediction), I'm wasting my time ... It was not a definition for practical use. It was use to prove a point. Atom vibrations in molecules don't change continuously. There are energy levels. When I said: I meant that that particular vibration remains at the same level. It is so hard to maintain constant temperature and block any incoming radiation? Again, this definition is not for practical purposes.

Nothing, in principle. Apart from the fact it would not make a useful way of defining seconds or metres. Yes, it "would not make a useful way of defining seconds or metres" for everyday life, but it is useful if you want to prove something, like I did. What external factors? I did produce a model. It "happens" that in real life we always use the non-rotating frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the Earth (or the biggest massive object around). This is because that frame is closest to an inertial frame and it is also the best if we need to consider gravitational time dilation. So, the frame where the darkmosphere is at rest is always the preferred frame ... That's why my "mechanistic" explanation works. Regarding the mathematics, in my model/theory the speed of light in vacuum is also invariant, so Lorentz transformations are valid. As swansont said, a new theory "needs to agree with the experiment", so I don't need to explain the old theory and how exactly is reaching a result, as long as my result is consistent with the reality, and it is. Again, quit hand-waving and point to an experimental fact related with time dilation, in disagreement with my explanations/claims. If you don't know any, just state it.

The darkmosphere is rotating around the Sun with the planet, as air atmosphere does, due to gravity. This is a fact observed for Bullet Cluster. About the rotation around the Earth: I wrote "absorb" and not absorb for a reason, and the reason is very nice explained in my Fizeau-Sagnac thread. Search quasi-absorption. I recommend you all to read it for a better understanding on how light travels through matter (both ordinary and dark).

That is not how the second is defined or measured. Far too variable. You didn't reply to my question. What was wrong in my bolded/underlined statement? What is "far too variable"? The atom/molecule? If so, why that energy difference we use to define the second would be not/less variable? By the way, I'm still waiting for your reply to: and I didn't recognize what you claim. On the contrary, dark matter atmosphere is the "backbone" of my model. And it is very dense in number of particles per cubic meter, not in kg/m3. Mass density of DM is very low, as "observed". It seems that you don't understand a lot of things (maybe because my wording is/was not very good and/or you didn't pay enough attention). As an example, i wrote: You replied: I wrote: You: Me: You: Me: You: That's why you said:

What about looking at how the second is actually defined. There is no movement involved and it would seem quite a stretch to suggest a mechanical explanation effecting it. It was wrong what I wrote above? Why/how? It is a stretch, yes, that's why I didn't try. Still, when the atom "slows down" or "speeds up", its energy levels would/should suffer some modifications, altering also the differences between them (they would decrease/increase). So, that oscillation is altered, not as reliable as we think it is ... So you are picking the evidence you can provide a mechanical explanation for and ignoring the awkward facts that you can't explain. This is not a fact. The fact is the end result of/for the round trip, and the end result is the same. You/we can use the time dilation formula derived from Lorentz transformations + the awkward frame change: as you can see here, but I prefer my explanation. It makes more sense. It also explains how time dilation is affecting the body ... Again, please point to an experimental fact related with time dilation, in disagreement with my explanations/claims. I guess they didn't feel the need to state something that would be understood by anyone familiar with the subject. I need more than a guess. I considered it as the spin, the rotation being around the Sun, together with the Earth. So this rotation is almost null, as the frame dragging is. Why? As I explained, there are very few interactions with ordinary matter particles, as for neutrino. An analogy: you cannot create much draft with a volleyball net. Not magically. The conservation laws I mentioned are not magic. DM particles cannot absorb photons. Follow the links I gave. So what is your point? The drag may occur in the BH's darkmosphere far outside the BH. In fact, most of the drag would be from other massive objects darkmospheres rotating around the BH. Of course it is! Any gravitational lensing calculations would always make allowances for any Newtonian refraction and such is easily recognised by the fact that refraction is chromatic and Gravitational lensing is achromatic. Read again. I said that the refraction in DM atmosphere is the reason for gravitational lensing.

Thank you! In the first one I found: My comments: 1. Why collisionless? Weak interaction would allow DM particles to collide. Or they would pass through each other? 2. They say "accreting haloes are assumed to develop from the inside out" but I couldn't find that this is valid just for galaxies and not for any massive object. From the second link: Again, it doesn't say or imply (on the contrary) that what is valid for galaxies is not valid for any massive object. So, it seems that I was right. Thank you again for the links. I admit that I can't explain this. It is derived from the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum, so it is in agreement with my "theory". On the other hand I have to reiterate that my "mechanistic" explanation is aimed to explain the facts we learned from experiments. And from Hafele-Keating experiments we learned: So, I was dealing with the facts. If you know any experiment regarding kinematic time dilation where the rate of a clock was not greatest, at the same altitude, in the non-rotating frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the Earth (or the closest massive object), please point to it.

For cold DM? Why not? Can you provide a link? True, but those effects are affecting what they would see. Anyway, it doesn't really matter how the observers are seeing each other's clock. What matters is that all observers are agreeing about the differences recorded and displayed by the tower-airplane twins clocks when they are meeting (and taking pictures). I hope you agree with the 2 facts derived from H-K experiments I mentioned, because those facts were demonstrated by my theory, and that is what we have to explain, the facts.

It usually, if not always, does. It does concentrate around the center of the galaxy, so it can concentrate around any massive object, significantly enough. You are right, more math is needed and I realized today that I missed at least one important detail: at predictions 4 and (partially) 5, summer/winter and day/night differences may be smaller and/or different then "predicted", because the far side of the darkmosphere may be thicker, but the Sun's darkmosphere pressure is lower there, so it may compensate. Still, the other predictions are ok, and deserve to be analyzed and tested. Yes. At the first prediction, where I calculated/estimated the size, I mentioned what a test particle would do near the border. Of course, a computer simulation would help ... If you meant spin, no, because there are very few interactions. I discussed it recently, in relation with frame dragging / darkmosphere rotation. Yes, but they'll see each other's clock running slower because the information travels with limited speed. Instant comparisons, as when the plane is flying near the tower, both twins taking pictures, would reveal that the observers are agreeing about which clock is running slower.

An orbit implies rotation. Yes, so DM cannot collapse, exactly as I said ... What is your point? Did you read the edited part below what you quoted here? No, if the predictions I made using my model and simple reasoning are confirmed, then my model won't be rejected.

What orbits? In order to rotate, a particle should have an angular momentum ... For ordinary particles, a tiny initial angular momentum produced the rotations we know, due to the fact that OM was able to collapse. It was not the case for DM. DM particles, like the molecules in a gas, can just bump into each other (weak interaction may be the reason for the rejection) and, while approaching a massive object (due to its gravity), their potential energy is transformed in kinetic energy, increasing their speed and subsequently the pressure of the DM gas.

Sorry, but I fail to understand why DM distribution in the galaxy, around its centre of gravity, can not be "replicated" around any massive object.

Why exactly? So there isn't, and never was, very dense, rotating, ordinary matter anywhere near the BH?!? or to make valid predictions using the new interpretation, while being in agreement with the existent theory results. Not for DM. Read my comment again, while keeping in mind that the halo around galaxies is a DM halo ... No, I said that my DM model (which obeys what we know about DM) can be used for a better, phenomenological, understanding of relativity, while for calculations, we can use the GR math, because there is no way to change the mathematics simply by replacing a postulate with an explanation stating the very same thing. In my first prediction I showed that what I deduced using my model and reasoning was confirmed by the GR math. The same would probably happen for all the predictions, if GR math is used correctly.