tmdarkmatter

So for you the sun is an object that is constantly absorbing space. That is interesting. It is like throwing a spear through a waterfall. Please give me a -999 reputation. Lol. I don´t care. I prefer to have answers to my questions.

I refer to this: Moon glows brighter than sun in images from NASA's Fermi (techexplorist.com) So what does the bending of light passing by the sun mean for you? Is it because of spacetime curvature?

the brightest source of visible light

But I think that there are a lot of variables/effects that were not taken into account so far. For example the deviation of light and therefore its concentration close to a "massy" object. The redshifting. Also back then, they did not have much data about billions of galaxies and possible sources of radiations. And of course now we know that the distribution of gamma rays is very different than estimated back then. And the worst scenario would be to consider that mass does not exist at all, it would be just an illusion created by these gravitational forces and by the forces necessary to move/accelerate an object against these forces. So when we say that photons have no mass, maybe matter also has no mass. And while we are sitting at home, these forces are currently there. Nobody would ever say that there are no pushing forces at all exerted by radiation. So, if it´s not THE solution to the problem, the solution is at least partial. So what I am proposing is combining Le Sage with new discoveries during the last decades, beginning with the deviation of light, the redshifting and the new sources of radiation detected.

Dear honorable scientists and average people, Ok, I am sorry for making you wait. Please have in mind that pressure (especially time pressure) will never give us good answers and well-conceived ideas. Now concerning gravity. Please answer the following questions for yourself: 1. We know that electromagnetic radiation (or light) exists in a huge amount of different frequencies with also a huge amount of different properties. This radiation or light is being created by all types of objects, beginning with the stars, gas clouds, even planets like Jupiter. So the first question is, if a person is floating in space, is it being hit by all kinds of radiation coming from all directions and with all types of intensities? I suppose that yes. 2. Is light in its different frequencies able to push massy objects (some kind of light sail effect)? I suppose that yes 3. Does light at lower frequencies have much less energy than light at very high frequencies (gamma radiation)? We should suppose that the intensity of a ray of gamma radiation should have maybe 100.000 times the intensity of a similar ray of visible light. Right? 4. Now imagine we have to compare a person standing on the ground of earth and another person floating in space very far away. What is the difference? Why would this person be attracted to earth? There must be something in the condition of this person that should change while moving from one position to another. Am I right? 5. So let us study this situation: The person floating in space is being hit by all kinds of radiation coming from all directions. But what happens with the person standing on the ground? Is this person also being hit by the same radiation? No, definitely not. Why not? Because there is no radiation coming from below the ground (actually, the ground itself might produce its own radiation, but for practical reasons, we should only concentrate on the radiation coming from deep space). We should define this as a "gravitational shadow" created by earth. Earth is blocking a huge part of the radiation coming from space, right? 6. And this "gravitational shadow" is inversely proportional to the square of radius r. The closer an object is to earth, the bigger the shadow of earth is on the object. At the same time, the object also creates a "gravitational shadow" on earth, so we have actually electromagnetic radiation pushing earth towards the object and electromagnetic radiation pushing the object towards earth, am I right? Well, now we have the following issues of why you might think that my model would never work (I admit that): 1. If the sun is by far the object in our solar system to create most of the radiation (actually it is not, but it is in our position on earth), shouldn´t the sun push us away from it? Well this might be what we would all think at the beginning, But there are several variables we should pay attention to. First, the sun does not produce a lot of high frequency radiation (almost nothing). This type of radiation is rather created by special events very far away like two colliding black holes. So there might be radiation coming from millions of colliding black holes just behind the sun, radiation that is being blocked by the sun. Second and very important is the effect created by this gravitational shadow on photons. As was already confirmed, gravity is bending the light of not only stars we can see close to the sun, but also of stars further away. If we would have to define the bending of light by the sun, we should say that the only light that is not being bent should be the light coming from the opposite direction of the sun. This means that the sky as we see it is an altered version of the real sky, the entire sky is being slightly altered by the sun. This means that the "effective shadow" of the sun should be quite bigger than its actual size. A third condition is that the light coming from all directions is not the same with the same intensity. Far away from the sun, the intensity of light should be (approximately) the same from all directions, but close to the sun, we have light that is still being attracted strongly by the sun hitting us from outer space, while the light that has already passed by the sun to hit us should be of a much lower intensity (redshifted). So if we divide the radiation arriving at our planet in two halfs, we have one half of a high intensity that is being concentrated by the sun and another half that is of lower intensity where light is being dispersed. When we stand on the ground, we are being very slightly pushed to the ground by an altered radiation and Earth is being pushed against us, being hit from behind, because there is no radation coming from below us holding us in position (in the air). I suppose that the force on earth towards us is much much stronger than the force pushing us down, therefore the mass of small objects does no longer matter when calculating the acceleration by gravity. Of course you will now all laugh about this funny idea, because its not easy to imagine that there are x-rays pushing us down to the ground, but consider that we might still be very far away from detecting all kinds of radiations or particles (maybe currently defined as gravitons) or even "pressures" and that this model of gravitational shadows can apply to all kinds of radiations and the sum of all of them can be responsible for gravity. On the other hand, you will mention that not all radiation penetrates the atmosphere, but even radiation hitting the atmosphere should push the earth. Also you might say that below the surface of earth, there will be a point where there is no more radiation. Well, this does not mean that earth is not being pushed against us. Also it is possible that gravity decreases at a certain depth, once the radiations and forces are again the same from all directions. Ok, please tell me what you think about this crazy idea. Please don´t insult me. Don´t forget that we currently have no idea what gravity is. We only have a model that seems to be very useful to make quite accurate calculations. And dont forget that space is huge and very little changes or deviations of light can have tremendous effects. Imagine the effect of slightly blocking, deviating or redshifting the radiation hitting our planet from one side versus the other side. And yes, the strange orbit of Mercury would be the result of a combination of gravitational shadow and light sail effect. Close to the sun, the light sail effect finally seems to increase. And I think it is better if people propose things that are refuted or not than having nobody showing up with new possibilities/ideas. If you want, consider this a good joke and laugh. It´s healthy to laugh. At least now I can continue with my duties. Thank you for your attention and good luck with your future projects! (Wo)mankind needs you! Kind regards, Thilo Müller

Please give me some time to continue, but I would like to start with all the things we know for sure, just asking you questions you hopefully answer saying "yes". Before we reach a possible solution of why this mystery force exists.

The problem is that we still have no explanation of why this force should exist. Why would masses attract other masses? So we just use space time curvature to explain something we could not resolve. But what if (sorry) we did not pay attention to all components of the universe in order to discover a real explanation for this force? May I propose a new model?

Of course, because you can alter the curvature of space time according to your needs (that means observations). But what if gravity is actually a force and there is no need to propose space time curvature to explain gravity?

Is gravity not a force? Is spacetime curvature not an alteration of the Cartesian coordinate system? These seem to be two different elements. One is a force, the other one is a proposed model to explain this force. Gravitational lensing is a proof of gravity (a force modifying the trajectory of light) but it is not a proof of spacetime curvature. Lets say it in other words. If I have a large, unbreakable, unbendable ruler and hold it through the gravitational field of a star and this ruler keeps going straight, this would be a proof that spacetime curvature does not exist. But the pulling force applied on this ruler would be a proof of the gravitational force.

So do you have any other proofs of spacetime curvature beside gravity? Its interesting that I immediately receive negative feedback and negative reputation etc. but can you answer this question? Can you understand what I am saying?

Please read the following sentences: "Gravity can only be explained by taking into account that there is a spacetime curvature." "The only proof of a spacetime curvature is gravity." "Because there is a god, we build a lot of churches." "If we build a lot of churches, there will be a god." "If the sun is shining today, I will ride my bike." "If I ride my bike, the sun will be shining." If you are interested in a new logical way to explain gravity, please send me a message, before this topic is being removed by the Einstein fanatics.

This is a part I am interested in. I wanted to ask you the following question: We suppose that light coming from distant galaxies leaves these galaxies, has to travel up the well of these galaxies and when it arrives at our milky way, it recovers its original frequency going back down, because the well of our galaxy should be similar to the original one, so there is no red shifting because of gravity, it is all because of speed of the galaxies. That is what you are suggesting? Ok, but what happens if during these 13 billions of years while this light is traveling, the universe changes from a huge bunch of galaxies with a high mass density to a similar huge bunch of galaxies with a slightly lower mass density. What I mean is that maybe the wells of all galaxies change from time to time and therefore the oldest light is more red shifted than the newer light, because it cannot enter a well of a similar size then when it left its own galaxy. Hubble created a link between speed of galaxies and red shift. What if this link is actually between time and red shift? We should not forget that in 13 billions of years the universe might change. For example, it might be possible that the black hole contained in each galaxy was smaller back then than it is now, so the well might have modified from a very flat but extended one to a more concentrated one in the middle. But don´t forget that we are not in the middle of our galaxy, so we might have "ascended" a little in our well during all this time. What you consider a special perspective might also be happening in all other galaxies, the well changes from time to time. On the other hand there is this massive amount of light leaving each galaxy, making all the stars losing some of their mass. This should also "ascend" us. Wasn´t the sun a little heavier a couple of billions of years ago than it is now?

But what I wanted to add here is that most scientists confirm that there is an expansion of the universe going on right now and that therefore there must have been a bing bang some time ago. But this idea of expansion and big bang is only based on the red shifting of galaxies. But, as shown in the Pound-Rebka experiment, light is also being red shifted by gravity. If galaxies are being red shifted because they are moving away from us, shouldn´t the light from the sun be more red shifted in the evening than in the morning? Shouldn´t stars like Sirius be more red shifted when our planet moves away from it on its journey around the sun? Shouldn´t the Andromeda galaxy be more red shifted when we move away from it in our journey around the center of the milky way? I know that you will now say that all these movements should be ignored, but if you compare the speed of our galaxy with the speed of the Andromeda galaxy towards us, there must certainly be some kind of observable red shifting, but this was not reported anywhere. But the blue shifting of Andromeda is being reported everywhere. On the other hand, Pound-Rebka could measure the red-shifting caused by some 20 meters of gravity well in the Harvard tower? I hope you understand that something seems to be wrong here and this can be the final refutation of the big bang theory. Maybe all the red shifting of the galaxies is only generated by the effect of gravity (by a mechanism we do not know yet) and all the galaxies might not be moving fast enough or moving in the wrong directions to reflect any type of big bang. I want to tell people that we would be nicer to scientists (and scientists to themselves) if they make a mistake. Do you really think that Einstein never made mistakes? I think that scientists should not be afraid of publishing something that might be wrong and of being punished for that, or of a damage to their reputation. This would cause science and mankind to not advance. The universe is very difficult to explain, especially the big bang or if there was a beginning of this universe. We also do not know what time, space, mass, gravity, light actually is. So I think that we do not need some perfect "smartest guy on this planet" heroes. Instead, I would prefer people who make mistakes and even admit it when they make a mistake, without getting punished for that. Are these times so crazy that mistakes are no longer allowed? (just think about what happened during the last 3 years)

So, an all-knowing scientist/prophet has written the holy text of the big bang theory and we should all believe, because those who do not believe in the exact wording shall be punished. Intepretations of the holy words are not allowed, nor any type of criticism, especially, if you are not familiar with the higher spheres of cosmology and do not hold a certain title granted by exclusive members of this high society. Is this the science we deserve after paying our taxes? Lol (common, this is a little joke, please laugh)

Well, infinite is a strong word. That´s why I used the term "almost infinite".

According to the current model, an almost infinite amount of mass was compressed to a small dot, but inflation is granted the special privilege to separate mass that is more compressed than a black hole with a much stronger gravity in order to create galaxies with similar characteristics than the milky way in less than 300 million years (while the Milky Way makes 1-2 spins)? According to the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric, the model is valid only on large scales (roughly the scale of galaxy clusters and above), so why are we making this huge exception for the tiny big bang? Why would inflation separate a huge black hole back then and not now, if dilation is exponential? It would not even be able to exceed the little force holding together our milky way?

Please compare the speed of the solar system around the center of the milky way with the speed of the galaxies moving away from us according to the Hubble constant and you will see that this speed is not totally negligible. But nobody is informing about this "minuscule" redshift, maybe because they just do not detect it. Not detecting it would refute the idea of the speed of galaxies to be responsible for the red shifting, ruining also the theory of big bang. If I understand the current models or not does not change the universe and does not make my ideas more or less valid. I presented a calculation in my first topic using "standard galaxies" showing that, in a sphere of a radius of 25 million light years (half the way to the next group of galaxies) surrounding us, the total mass of light, if our sun is losing 4 millions tons of light mass per second, should be about 11,5 times the mass of the milky way. But this amount should increase considerably considering all the anomalies I mentioned in the same topic (light not emitted by stars, light being bended, light bumping against other objects, background radiation, objects with big masses holding back light etc.) Anyway, I do not want to "offend" you in any way or try to obligate you to "believe" in any of my ideas. I am only making suggestions. Concerning the article you send me it is very interesting, but I am wondering how the author measured the "light mass" coming from all light emitting sources of this universe arriving at each point of this universe in order to be able to definitely refuse the idea. I can see that when scientists calculate the mass of light of the solar system, they only take into account the sun (10 times further away from the sun than pluto it is only a dot in the sky), and if its the milky way, they only consider the light emitted by this galaxy. Also, they do not consider the space surrounding the milky way which is also filled with light mass and also has an effect on the milky way.

Can you give me any citations where this red shift of light coming from the center of our milky way is mentioned? So far, I can only read that galaxies moving away are being responsible for any type of red shifting (Hubble constant). The red shifting related to light moving into and out of wells is completely ignored. It is like scientists are only interested in justifying the big bang theory, so whenever you want to be part of the community, the first thing you have to do is to bow your head and say "yes, there was a big bang and I commit myself to only believe in the big bang" without any type of questioning. And it is also funny, because even the sunlight should be more red shifted in the evening than in the morning, if the Doppler effect according to the Hubble constant is true. Also stars behind us while travelling around the center of the milky way and even other galaxies that are behind use while moving should be red shifted. But all this is not mentioned.

But I am asking Lorentz this time, not you

Hi Lorentz Jr. Thank you for your message. I do not consider myself to be a physicists. I just like to ask questions. Considering the negligible part, we should define how negligible it is by repeating the Shapiro time delay starting further away from the sun. What if these 200 msec increase considerably? If we can see Einstein rings, we should suppose that the mass of all the objects of our solar system should combine and increase the effect. And the effect should also increase with the distance from the sun, because the light is travelling at a certain angle for a longer time. Concerning the Einstein radius, I would like to know what happens to this light being deviated. Does it travel through the lens galaxy? Another question is, if we can see the Einstein rings and agree to the idea that the light is being deviated, shouldn´t the light coming from stars or galaxies that are not exactly behind a lens galaxy also be manipulated/bended, even if we do not see Einstein rings? If yes, the real position of a galaxy might not only be different due to the distance (and corresponding time of travel) but also because its light is being deviated. There should be some 1000 galaxies between Earth and the furthest galaxies we can see, so shouldn´t their light be extremely deviated? Imagine light coming from a galaxy and passing by the galaxies in between, always on the same side next to the lens galaxies. The angles of the Einstein ring effect should combine and completely deviate the light. But as the light does not travel exactly in a way creating an Einstein ring, we just see a normal galaxy and think that the light of this galaxy was never manipulated. Is it possible that the light of our milky way travels to the border of our universe and, due to an extensive combination of these Einstein radii, it comes back? What if background radiation is actually light from galaxies coming back home? When thinking about this idea please take into account that we still do not know where the universe ends. Maybe there will be a point where we cannot see any more galaxies because the light is just getting deviated too much in order to arrive at Earth, so they are invisible to us, just as the light within a black hole is invisible to us because it is being bended inside of it. Another question is, if light is being deviated by galaxies, shouldn´t this effect also be responsible for the observed red shifting? I know that people already told me that light entering a well and coming out recover its original energy, because otherwise there would be a "loss of energy". But if light has a tiny mass, it should be able to "attract" objects, and this attraction force might be responsible for the tiny "loss of energy" resulting in red shifting. The problem with the galactic gravity well is that we are also in a "galactic cluster gravity well", a "group of galactic cluster gravity well" and maybe even a "total visible matter well", so the effects of time dilatation should increase the further we look and therefore the light seems to be travelling faster than it should from our point of view, as further away the source is. This also means that the speed of light is completely relative and depends on the surroundings (the present mass). And what happens to light travelling from a galaxy far away to Earth with its speed beeing decreased because in our well it must travel slower? On the other hand light coming from stars close to the black hole in the center of our galaxy is being accelerated on its way towards us, so it should have characteristics that are the opposite of the light coming from far away outside. Overall, we should say that what we see in the sky might be totally different to what is actually going on out there.

Well, saying that something is wrong because it is wrong is not criticism, it is fundamentalism.

Please also close this stream and make it disappear. I am not interested in sharing my ideas at a place without freedom of speech.

According to the current calculations of the mass our sun is (currently) losing per second, we would have to stand in the sun for over 2000 years in order to get hit by 1 gram of light mass. But this light mass would still be enough considering the enormous size of space. Our sun has the size of 2 red blood cells surrounded by a soccer field of "not so empty" space (our solar system). But this was already discussed in my previous post, so I am not going to repeat it all. Before answering, please try to imagine the universe. Try to imagine light created during billions of years travelling through an enormous (very hard to imagine) space and your no-starter position might change. Ok, my basis in science is as follows: - The sun is emitting light and we can see it. (proof) So light is travelling through space and it is almost everywhere. - The Einstein rings show us that light is beeing manipulated by gravity. (it should have a mass, even if Einstein is only talking about mass bending space/time). - The Pound-Rebka experiment shows us that light is being red shifted by gravity, so it is being manipulated by gravity. (it should have a mass) - The sun seems to be losing 4 million tons of mass per second, where does all this mass go to? Does it just disappear? (not possible according to the laws of thermodynamics) You will also have to provide me with a definition of science. What is science? Is only the theory of relativity science? Is only quantum mechanics science? Who is the owner of science? The volume of our solar system is of about 9,14 * 1049 cubic meters and each of these cubic meters contains the light coming from at least 1022 stars.

Ok, thank you. What does "support with evidence" mean?

About a month ago, I posted my idea of the possibility that if light has a mass, it is the best candidate to replace dark matter, because it is transparent, well distributed in the entire universe, does not combine with other particles to form "visible" matter and (most important) it is the only type of particles/energy/mass we know for sure is present everywhere in space. Please don´t forget that we are searching for particles present everywhere (like water) instead of searching for some rare elements (like diamonds), because "dark matter" should be responsible for about 80% (40% - 99% according to the author) of the entire mass of the universe. For those who think that light is "visible" and can therefore not be "dark matter", I can tell you that we can only see light one instance at the time, but we cannot see millions of years of light travelling through space. But the main issue proposed here is that the "light mass", if light has a mass, would not be enough and that a star can never produce more light mass than its own mass. Well, in that regard I propose that the universe should rather be trillions of year old or even older and that the material of dead stars should have been recycled many (maybe millions) of times. Another problem is that when people calculate the mass of light of the solar system or a galaxy, they always calculate the light mass based on the light produced by this sun or galaxy and they do not take into account the light produced by the billions of galaxies out there. It is the light coming from all these galaxies that is arriving at each point of our universe. But my calculations of enough light mass surrounding us were of course ignored here. What should also be taken into account is a long list of all kind of anomalies that should increase the total amount of light present in a galaxy, this means light be holded back by big masses, light bouncing off other objects (example: our moon), most of the mass of a black hole maybe being just light, light produced by other objects than stars (example: Jupiter), etc. One very important discovery related to this is the fact that the intensity of light increases when leaving our solar system, as detected by the New Horizons probe. This is because we are surrounded by all type of dust and masses and are therefore at a very bad observation point to observe space. But the more the real intensity of light coming from stars is, the higher the amount of light mass can be. I have written a book about this new idea in German ("Eine Lösung für das Geheimnis der dunklen Materie"), but I suppose that this topic here will be closed immediately, because I am ruining the current favourite model of the universe. The last time the excuse for closing it was that I did not provide any formulas and that I should "prove" my ideas. The problem is that in order to "prove" my ideas, we would need to send a big telescope not only to interstellar space, but also to the intergalactic space. Our civilization not being able to measure the light mass travelling between the stars does not mean that my idea can be easily rejected. But I think that my idea makes more sense than keep searching for other "invisible" particles for the next decades, particles that are far too rare to be dark matter.