MikeAL

Look it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibronic_spectroscopy

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

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. 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.

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

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. 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 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. 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.

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 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. 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/

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.

Duly noted.

Woo hoo! Thanks for sharing the reply. The empirical data is already there. I'm just giving it ontological meaning.

I've said all along there is a relationship between gravity and matter, sure, one of many relationships gravity has. In my OP I describe mass as acting like an anchor point for gravity, giving it stability. Gravity could fold to create matter which then pins gravity in that conformation. Releasing the matter through disintegration and dispersion unpins it. 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.

I would be very curious what he says as well. If you could let me know I'd appreciate it. Photons arise from the EMF. "The ripples of the electric and magnetic fields get turned into particles when we include the effects of quantum mechanics. " Can you give me an example? Is it evidenced in the same way that the magnet 'gives rise' to the magnetic field? How about when a heavy celestial body passes close to another much smaller celestial body and throws it out of orbit without even touching it? I suggest this is evidence for my proposal, not against it. If gravity was arising from the massive body we would expect a one to one correspondence between angular momentum and the Lense Thirring effect. The fact that there is a delay suggests that the mass is acting on the gravity, but the gravity is responding slowly. It is its own entity.

Interesting. I would like to see a bit more detail on that. I doubt it is something that can actually happen in reality. Yeah it is interesting. Your quarrel lies with the scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics though, not me. I have given you evidence that mass gives rise to gravity. Yes, thank you. This information though is about the existence and effects of gravity, not of the primacy of matter over gravity. Perhaps primacy is not the best word. I mean that due to the inextricable nature of matter and gravity co-existing at the same time, without evidence to the contrary it cannot be claimed that matter is 'giving rise' to gravity, any more than it can be said that gravity is 'giving rise' to matter. Claiming it ain't so don't make it ain't so. Ditto for matter creating gravitational fields. 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. I have also drawn your attention to the idea of gravity creating gravity. I have also cited precedence - that fields give rise to particles, rather than particles giving rise to fields (the idea of particles giving rise to the gravitational field is a little far fetched given today's scientific understanding of the universe). It was Faraday that suggested that the magnet did not create its own magnetic field but instead interacted with a universal field. It was later shown that the electrons which curve this field arise from the field itself. What is important for the OP is not proving that mass arose from gravity, but that gravity can exist independent of matter - that matter is not giving rise to the field. That matter and gravity interact is not questioned. In showing the independence of matter from gravity we have seen how energy can interact with gravity and there is also evidence that electromagnetism itself interacts with gravity and affects its curvature. https://physics.aps.org/story/v7/st27 When we have gravity independent from matter we have a candidate for Dark Matter which has been hypothesised to be non-baryonic (thus explaining why we can't see what is causing the gravity). It is gravity without matter.

Where do you get that from? I get it from here. This site is hosted by the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics. A prime example are gravitational waves, and these are also an example for the gravity of gravity: As such waves propagate, energy is transported through space. But energy is a source of gravity, so when two gravitational waves meet, they do not just pass through each other, they interact. If both waves are weak, the interaction will be almost unnoticeable, but for stronger waves, the consequences can be quite dramatic - in some cases, the collision of two gravitational waves could lead to the formation of a black hole! http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity These ideas can be easily distinguished. There is evidence that gravity is due to the presence of matter (or, strictly speaking, mass). There is zero evidence that matter can be created by gravity. So we do not agree. I have asked for evidence that shows primacy of matter before gravity. If you have this proof I would like to examine it. Without it, we cannot say that mass gives rise to gravity with any more certainty than we can say that gravity gives rise to mass. Mass and gravity appear simultaneously to each other. The idea of matter fields suggests that matter arises from fields (like the Higgs field). Changes in fields are associated with waves. It is the fluctuating wave that creates the matter. The idea of matter fields lends support to the idea of primacy of the wave before the matter. https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/fields/chicken-and-egg-matter-and-field/ In his book Tales of the Quantum, Understanding Physic's Most Fundamental Theory, Art Hobson says (p95) "You'll soon see that both matter and radiation are made of quanta and and that each quantum is extended spatially and must be classified as a wave in a field." Fields fill the entire universe. So we have a field giving rise to matter. Here is an example of precedence. This is from the University of Cambridge "From Fields to Particles If you look closely enough at electromagnetic waves, you'll find that they are made out of particles called photons. The ripples of the electric and magnetic fields get turned into particles when we include the effects of quantum mechanics. But this same process is at play for all other particles that we know of. There exists, spread thinly throughout space, something called an electron field. Ripples of the electron field get tied up into a bundle of energy by quantum mechanics. And this bundle of energy is what we call an electron. Similarly, there is a quark field, and a gluon field, and Higgs boson field. Every particle your body --- indeed, every particle in the Universe --- is a tiny ripple of the underlying field, moulded into a particle by the machinery of quantum mechanics." http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/whatisqft.html No, it would be akin to saying that the EM field can give rise to photons. I think I've just shown that happens. **Oh and I might add that saying matter gives rise to gravity would be akin to saying photons create the electromagnetic field.

I agree. I also agree that it too obvious a solution to have been overlooked. My own prediction is that the value will be too low. One of the reasons for posting here is that I thought someone might be able to give me a value. This gravity calculation however will be based on the measurements of the matter in the galaxies. It is for this reason that I have gone to such extreme care to try and show that gravity may be able to operate independently from matter. My process has been thus: 1) Show that the ideas that gravity arises from matter or that matter arises from gravity cannot be teased apart and primacy of one idea given over the other. We have both agreed that matter and gravity (at a discreet level at least) are inextricably linked. 2) To provide examples where possible of gravity acting independently of matter. To this end I have discussed gravity waves, and we have looked at gravity from gravity. 3) To draw attention to the fact that while there are examples of the presence of gravity without matter, there are no examples of the presence of matter without gravity. 4) Using points 2 and 3, I have attempted to show gravity can act as an independent force from matter whereas matter as having a dependent relationship with gravity. This relationship is hierarchical, lending support to the idea that gravity could be creating (or may have created) matter and not the other way around (resolving the paradox of step 1). 5) Realising that in addition to matter, energy can curve/or be a result of the curvature of space we suddenly have a continuum of sorts between energy and matter arising through gravitation. 6) If you have made it this far it is not therefore unreasonable to suggest that gravity has curved independent of the curvature created by matter. That the curvature of Dark Matter is filled with energy. The weakness in the argument as I see it is that the evidence for gravity independent of matter has matter at its source, but counter to this we find that two gravitational waves can create a black hole. By removing matter by this extra degree we lend support to the idea.

The Dark Matter theory is already out there, Strange. Wherever Dark Matter goes my theory follows. The problem with Dark Matter is that we do not know what can account for the gravity that would be generating the required effects. My solution is that we do not need to fill the Dark Matter space with anything other than gravity itself. To show this, I have drawn attention toward the relationship between matter and gravity, and demonstrated through argument that gravity can exist independent from matter. The second theory is on Dark Energy which accounts for an outward expansion of the universe beyond what current calculations suggest possible without it. These descriptions of Dark Energy describe it as anti-gravitational in nature and less dense than other space. I have argued how this is possible by considering the force lines that create gravity in space time. These force lines represent a convergence. As this is the case, then force lines may also be considered to come in parallel or divergent forms as well. The divergent form would diagramatically speaking look like force lines bending outward relative to each other, almost like a bubble. As space time expands the bubble is stretched flat and the force lines would become parallel once again. The collapse of the bubble, geometrically speaking, could be providing the outward push. The increasing rate of expansion merely reflecting the fact that as the walls of the bubble flatten the vector component of the push would become more in the direction of expansion. There is another part to this idea that I have not discussed here yet, but is in my OP - and that is the seeming ubiquity of the force.

This disagreement should be happening elsewhere. I am here to defend my OP, not myself. This line of questioning is counterproductive and has taken the OP in a direction it should not be going. I am only entering into this discussion of 'he said he said' based on the instruction of the moderator. After this I will hear no more of it. If your feelings are hurt because I suggested you agreed with me I apologise. Can we please now get back on track moderator? It is no more an elusive concept that mass creating gravity. But let me try a different approach. I'm sure you're aware of the illustrations of an earth size body sitting at the bottom of a gravitational well. Well, of course the 3D equivalent of that would be happening with force lines going in. The density of the force lines as we approach the center would increase. Except have good evidence that that is the case. What evidence is that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2015/11/28/classical-tests-general-relativity/ http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/rosalba/astro2030/GeneralRelativity_tests.pdf It's getting a bit late to be going through it, but I'll take a look at the links sometime tomorrow and see how it separates the ideas of gravity from matter and matter from gravity. It doesn't. They are inextricably linked. Great to see you finally agreeing with me.

You are thinking local, not global. The curvature of space in one area would be offset by a flattening or an inverse curvature someplace else. No violation of conservation laws.

I think we established with Strange that mass and the curvature of spacetime are inextricably linked. The two coexist when we look at it from a mass perspective. Wherever we have mass we have gravity. We cannot therefore say that mass gives rise to gravity, anymore than we can say gravity gives rise to matter. Both statements are equally contentious and equally plausible. Having said that, there are examples of gravity existing 'after' mass has been there, as you yourself pointed out. Yes, the field lines are illustrative - of a truth associated with the model. Hence the creation of the model. No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that gravity/space/time, (the same thing) is non linear and that along with the gravity field of a BH being a fossil field, explains how gravity gets out of a BH. Take away the mass, and you take away the gravity. There are no examples of gravity fields without any mass in reality. The non-linearity of spacetime is a very interesting phenomenon. Reading through the link: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity We begin to see that matter's contribution to gravity is indeed non-linear. We find energy is creating gravity. Two energetic gravity waves can create a black hole. Where's the mass in the formation of the black hole? It may be the argument that the origin of the gravitational waves was matter, but can it be proved that that matter didn't arise from a specific curvature of space to begin with? You see, matter can't move away from its gravity. Space is always curved around it at the same density. To not have the same density or curvature would represent a change in the mass. Gravity, however, does not seem to have such constraint. It can move away from matter and act independently of matter. So one has a dependent spatial relationship and the other independent. If I was to create a hierarchy tree, I would put the dependent phenomenon arising from the independent one, not the other way around. Next, we can take a look at situations which have no counterpart in Newtonian physics. A prime example are gravitational waves, and these are also an example for the gravity of gravity: As such waves propagate, energy is transported through space. But energy is a source of gravity, so when two gravitational waves meet, they do not just pass through each other, they interact. If both waves are weak, the interaction will be almost unnoticeable, but for stronger waves, the consequences can be quite dramatic - in some cases, the collision of two gravitational waves could lead to the formation of a black hole! Speaking of black holes, the collapse of a star to form such an object is another example where the gravity of gravity becomes important. You might think that during such a collapse, as matter becomes compressed further and further, its contribution to local gravity would become more and more important. But in fact, that is not the case - on the contrary, in the innermost regions of the collapse, close to the black hole's singularity, the gravity of gravity itself is mostly responsible for the structure of space and time (more about this can be found in the spotlight text Of singularities and breadmaking. The Bullet cluster observation shows that to be false in my opinion...as does gravitational lensing. I'm not entirely sure what your objection here is. Can you elaborate for me? "While the Bullet Cluster phenomenon may provide direct evidence for dark matter on large cluster scales, it offers no specific insight into the original galaxy rotation problem. In fact, the observed ratio of dark matter to visible matter in a typical rich galaxy cluster is much lower than predicted.[15] This may indicate that the prevailing cosmological model is insufficient to describe the mass discrepancy on galaxy scales, or that its predictions about the shape of the universe are incorrect." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster#Significance_to_dark_matter DE whatever it is, is a property of flat spacetime over the largest scales, overcoming the gravity of curved spacetime over smaller scales such as our galaxy, local group and cluster of galaxies. I want to have a look at the definition of flat spacetime. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotically_flat_spacetime "An asymptotically flat spacetime is a Lorentzian manifold in which, roughly speaking, the curvature vanishes at large distances from some region, so that at large distances, the geometry becomes indistinguishable from that of Minkowski spacetime. While this notion makes sense for any Lorentzian manifold, it is most often applied to a spacetime standing as a solution to the field equations of some metric theory of gravitation, particularly general relativity. In this case, we can say that an asymptotically flat spacetime is one in which the gravitational field, as well as any matter or other fields which may be present, become negligible in magnitude at large distances from some region. In particular, in an asymptotically flat vacuum solution, the gravitational field (curvature) becomes negligible at large distances from the source of the field (typically some isolated massive object such as a star)" That's fine. We have simply zoomed out so we can't see the geometric drivers for the expansion of the universe. Dark Energy could still be operating at a relatively local level. I'm not suggesting a warped space-time vacated of mass-energy. What I am suggesting is that the warping of space creates energy and beyond a certain point creates mass. Totally sensical.

You may be interested in this link, suggesting the assumed asymmetry might not exist: https://www.livescience.com/60798-why-the-universe-should-not-exist.html?utm_source=notification

I have clearly stated that the premise of my OP for dark matter is that gravity may be arising independently of mass from matter. Now Strange has agreed that mass is not the only thing that gives rise to gravity. No. Mass is not the only thing that gives rise to gravity. I have specifically stated that mass and gravity appear inextricably linked. Strange has now parroted those exact words back to me, even after he tried to give me evidence that this was not the case. It doesn't. They are inextricably linked. Great to see you finally agreeing with me. The difference is that of one giving rise to the other versus one being the other. It is a subtle difference and I wanted to make it draw your attention toward some properties of space-time. And yes, force lines are illustrative. Obviously we don't have real force lines painted across the sky. That being said, they are not made up either. They are illustrating the direction of a force. This is why the illustration is functioning as an explanation. Ok, that's fine. But you do understand though that what you are saying is that after the object has left, the geometric impression in space-time remains, and this geometric curvature is gravity. There exists therefore an example of the contortion of space-time without matter holding the curvature in place. A bending of space-time creating gravity with no mass at the centre. Gravity is existing independently of matter. Dark Matter can be evidenced by these things. I am not saying Dark Matter does not exist. Far from it. I am saying Dark Matter does exist and the reason it is dark is because there is nothing there except the gravity caused by the bending of space-time independent of matter, which we just established above occurs. My explanation offers a reason why the gravity is so much greater than the calculated mass without having to invoke other more complicated scenarios. Far from confusing, it seems quite straight forward. Dark Energy as described in terms of divergent force lines (the opposite of gravity) would create a bubble like structure in space that would tend toward collapse in terms of its geometric structure. This collapse would be providing an outward push contributing to the expansion of the universe. Furthermore as the bubble collapses the tangent of the slope would become more aligned with the direction of the expansion increasing the rate of expansion. Such a structure would seem to provide all the properties attributed to Dark Energy. The idea is very simple I think.

No. Mass is not the only thing that gives rise to gravity. This is described by the elements of the stress-energy tensor: Mass is included (mainly) as the energy density. It doesn't. They are inextricably linked. Great to see you finally agreeing with me.

Perhaps. Perhaps it actually is that simple to visualise the complex math. A lot of math put in geometric form is quite intuitive. Yes. You may have noticed that apples fall from trees. Yes, the gravity field of the earth and the gravity field of the apple embraced each other and pulled the two together. Gravity giving rise to gravity - shouldn't that be matter giving rise to gravity? Energy giving rise to gravity - shouldn't that be matter giving rise to gravity? No. Gravitational waves are transient and very, very small (on cosmological scales). So we can rule out gravity waves from neutron stars as accounting for dark matter, even though the idea of gravity without matter (the premise of the OP) survives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2015/11/28/classical-tests-general-relativity/ http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/rosalba/astro2030/GeneralRelativity_tests.pdf It's getting a bit late to be going through it, but I'll take a look at the links sometime tomorrow and see how it separates the ideas of gravity from matter and matter from gravity.

Yep. The gravitational wave is more of an attempt to explain Dark Energy and the pattern we see in the universe. For gravity I agree that it is the geometry of space time... or is the geometry of space time gravity? But if gravity is an area where force lines converge, then geometrically speaking we could have areas where they are parallel, where they converge, and where they separate (or become less dense). But if they become less dense, then that can't be gravity.... What could it be? What properties might such an outward geometric curvature have? For one, I would expect gravity to be... well the exact opposite. A repulsion. The field lines would be pushing things around in, not drawing it in. Such a bubble in space would want to collapse outward like a puff of air from a pillow. Would that expand space time? You know that this sounds like?...Dark Energy. Except have good evidence that that is the case. What evidence is that? I half agree with you. I was trying to illustrate my point with a well known diagram. Time effects are considered in Dark Energy. If that were the case, there would be no gravity outside of the body. But there is, so your expectation is faulty. (Which is the problem when trying to use your intuition to understand what you think GR should do.) Ah, I see. There is gravity outside the body is there? My OP suggests that perhaps matter 'precipitates (or precipitated)' out at a certain curvature or density of space. In this scenario it would be the curvature of space-time that is creating the mass - matter. Oh, and the last bit about using intuition to figure out what GR should do - not that I'm comparing myself - but there is a lot of reports of Einstein doing just that to figure out GR. No, but they do carry energy away. So the mass of the resulting neutron star is less than the sum of the two original ones. Hmm, energy, no matter, gravity - could be a candidate for Dark Matter don't you think?

It is no more an elusive concept that mass creating gravity. But let me try a different approach. I'm sure you're aware of the illustrations of an earth size body sitting at the bottom of a gravitational well. Well, of course the 3D equivalent of that would be happening with force lines going in. The density of the force lines as we approach the center would increase. The body at the center of the gravity well is said to be curving space around it (the idea that it is doing the curving rather than a result of the curving is the contentious bit, but I'll skip it for now). However there is the region around the matter where space is funneling in that has no mass in it - and yet it is curved. GR is aware of it and does account for it, but nonetheless matterless gravity is occurring. I would expect matter to fill every inch of curved space not just the center. Does mass exist in a gravity wave from two neutron stars? I don't know. Or in this special case is space time bending in the absence of matter? Is gravity existing without matter? I'm starting to get a bit scared of this Mordred character. Should I quit while I'm ahead?

No, not material. The field lines of gravity become concentrated. Does that explanation make sense to you?