tmdarkmatter

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.

I am sorry, this confusion has to do with little differences between languages on how to denominate certain scientific effects, situations or theories.

Well, when Einstein came up with his ideas, all physicists were also saying that they are already aware of everything and that there are no more things to discover. What if time dilatation and light bending in total are not as negligible as initially thought? Don´t forget that when we are looking at the sky, we are only seeing light! We do not see stars or galaxies, just light. We cannot travel around stars, we cannot touch them. The more the light is bended and the stronger time dilatation is (and the further away galaxies are), the less does the image we see correspond to reality. Maybe stars and galaxies are just playing a game with us and nothing we see is actually there. But there is no way to prove that, unless we travel for a couple of millions of years to at least some neighbor stars. Well, actually, the light is not "converging on us". That´s why we see an Einstein ring. And after passing by the lens, we just have to be lucky enough to have a source galaxy that is at the correct distance (similar to our distance from this galaxy) to see the Einstein ring. But if there was no galaxy behind, the lens effect would exist anyway. Each heavy object is a lens, there are billions of lens surrounding us, each one with a certain angle/strength of bending. And many lens together seem to act as one big lens as well. There are even billions of lens made only of dark matter. But not seeing them does not mean that they are not there. Light might be bending everywhere and stars and galaxies might not be where we would suppose to find them. The same happens with time. And the light is only being bended at the exact moment when it passes by the lens. The distance between lens and source or lens and observer does not affect the angle or strength of the lens. All the effect should be produced in a couple of thousands of light years (or even less).

I am sorry, but even in the "highly simplified" image of Wikipedia it does not seem that the light passes close to the black hole of the "lens galaxy": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring The only distances that matter are the distances between source, lense, and observer. It seem highly improbable that it is the light passing closest to the black hole that we see in the Einstein ring. If you watch the Andromeda galaxie, you can see that the center of the galaxy seems not to be transparent from a distance. Rather this light seems to be passing by the galaxy. If you analyze the sun, it is made of trillions of atoms. The same happens with galaxies, they are made of billions of stars, but work together to create the effect.

I mean the opposite. If we should not be worried about this effect, why are there Einstein rings surrounding galaxies? Please don´t think that I am argueing. It is only a question. I am just curious.

Yes, but what I can see is that this effect is always being considered as negligible, but if we are close to a black hole, the entire universe surrounding us would change completely. And maybe the same happens, if we are in the intergalactical space. But the strange thing is that physics currently ignore this effect here, because being for example 25 million light years away from our galaxy according to these equations would be almost the same situation than on earth. It is strange, but we are currently within a galaxy with a mass of 1,5 10^12 x 2,00 10^27 = 3 10^39 tons and we consider that being 25 million light years away from this mass would not have any effect at all?

Wow, we are still very far away from accurately measuring the universe. I did not know that the measured distances would be that inaccurate! Thank you very much for your answer. Yes, maybe I would like to know what would be the situation near a black hole AND in the intergalactic space (in comparison). If close to a black hole, I am wondering that the light surrounding us would be travelling faster than what we would consider "speed of light" at this place. Maybe, because of our proximity to the sun, there should be a very slight effect on our passage of time, so that most of the light surrounding us would be travelling "faster than the speed of light", unless it is at a similar distance or closer to a star of the mass of our sun. But most light should be travelling faster. The average speed of light of the universe might for example be 305,000 km per second or even more at the average distance from stars, if we take this real distance and compare it with the space surrounding Earth. And close to a black hole, this speed might be only 150.000 km per second or even less. Maybe this situation is the cause of why light is getting trapped in a black hole in the first place.

The question is, if time passes by slower close to heavy masses, what effect does that have on light passing by a heavy object (black hole). According to Einstein, all processes take place slower and, although light keeps travelling at the speed of light, we (from our point of view) should see that this light should pass by slower. In the intergalactic space, however, the total opposite should happen. As time goes by faster and the light there also passes by at the speed of light, from our point of view we should see this light travelling faster than the speed of light as we know it. If this is real, the galaxies we see, should actually be slightly farther away from us, because the light was travelling faster than we think, a light year would be a bigger distance in the intergalactic space. And if we watch the center of our milky way, it should be somewhat closer to us, because the light was travelling slower. A light year would be a smaller distance. Please tell me what you think.