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

## Recommended Posts

When I studied relativity I didn't like it because it was not logical. Time dilation? Length contraction? Curved space-time? I had some ideas to explain things differently, but only now, after 25-30 years, armed with new knowledge, I finally obtained a simple, phenomenological theory/model that makes time dilation, curved space-time, frame-dragging, twin paradox and all other peculiar things predicted by Einstein's relativity, and confirmed by experiments, easy to understand. My theory agrees with mainstream relativity in term of results (the math is the same, for now), but is not just a mathematical model that works ...

The main idea is that the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum, postulated and used by Einstein (when dark matter was unknown!), can be explained using dark matter … This explanation doesn't change (all) the results (since postulated or explained, the same thing is used), but makes everything easier to understand (see below) and opens new doors to knowledge.

In my opinion, Einstein's relativity is a 4D “map” of a 3D reality. Like a topographic map (with contour lines, capable to show, for a trained eye, the mountains and valleys on a 2D paper), Einstein's 4D space-time / relativity can help us get good results, but it isn't the true representation of the reality and can be misleading.

If you expect sophisticated mathematics, you will be disappointed. My “article” is based mostly on reasoning and on proposing experiments capable to prove dark matter relativity better than Einstein's relativity. New mathematical and/or computer models for dark matter relativity can be made later.

1. My hypothesis is that dark matter consists in a huge number of very small particles, small enough to fill uniformly, like a gas, the "empty" space inside the atoms and light enough to make only 4 times the mass of ordinary matter and to pass largely unnoticed in terms of drag. These particles, similar with electrons, but charge-less and probably lighter and smaller, are interacting gravitationally with ordinary particles (this is the main thing we know about dark matter) and with each other.

Due to gravitational attraction towards the center of massive objects (planets, stars, galaxies), this gas-like dark matter, similar to atomic/molecular gas, forms (huge) atmospheres, roughly spherically symmetric around the center of gravity, the DM halo detected in the case of galaxies. Dark matter atmosphere (short: darkmosphere), like normal (air) atmosphere, increases in density from outside towards the center and travels with the massive object (in the surrounding, larger, darkmosphere).

Furthermore, these very small dark matter particles are able to “absorb” and very quickly re-emit light/photons, like electrons/atoms (see here), with the difference that photons are always re-emitted as they were, in order to have this perfect transparency of "dark" matter. Also, for some reasons, the time between absorption and re-emission and the speed of re-emission are always the same (at least on average), in order to have the same speed in "vacuum" for all photons (all frequencies), and the "drag", in the space between particles, is zero (or very close to zero), because we see (almost) no unaccounted redshift.

So, in this model, the speed of light/photons through dark matter depends only on the speed between dark matter particles, which is constant (the re-emission speed), and the number of delaying absorptions/re-emissions.

If you prefer a wave approach (instead of photons being absorbed and re-emitted), you may consider this dark matter atmosphere as a perfectly transparent gas, for light and all other electromagnetic radiations, with the observation that the speed of light through gases tend to decrease when the density of the gas increases.

2. Time dilation.

Time dilation and the twin paradox are still very hard to grasp for most of the people, after more than 100 years since relativity was born … You can see in relativity forums questions & opinions about these subjects time and time again. This is good, because this is the main way to really understand relativity. The problem is that the answers are misleading. First of all, the answers are not about what is happening to clocks/humans. There are only geometrical explanations on how to understand & apply the theory. And instead of considering (for kinematic time dilation) real life experiments, like the Hafele–Keating experiment, they are “playing” in a world without gravity, in order to remain in Special Relativity. No wonder that they don’t understand what is happening.

Let’s consider a more realistic twin paradox experiment (I wrote about it here), a simplification of the Hafele-Keating experiment (something heavily tested):

One twin is living in a tower on Earth, at the equator, and the other is flying around the Earth with constant, high, speed, at the same level with the "tower twin". Both are using very accurate clocks with 2 displays, one normal and one very big.

The plane with the flying twin gets very close to the tower every time it completes a full circle around the Earth (following the equator) and both twins are taking pictures with both plane & tower cocks in the same frame/picture (remember the normal + big displays).

The pictures are dropped at the tower base to be easily compared.

Now, the most important & current misconception is that the velocity time dilation (a difference in the elapsed time measured by two observers) is reciprocal … If someone compares the pictures dropped by the above twins, he/she can see that it is not always the case: they agree about which clock is remaining behind ... Reciprocity is valid if the flying twin looks back and compare the plane clock with the tower clock and the tower twin looks after the plane to also compare the clocks. And this is due to the fact that the image/information travels with a limited speed. When side by side, they instantly compare their clocks. In my opinion only this instant comparison is important (if you want to understand what is happening). It should be called real time dilation, and the other apparent time dilation.

Another misconception is that the stay-at-home twin, the one that didn’t experience acceleration, would age more. This is not always true. In my experiment, the tower twin may age less if the plane is flying westwards ... So, the acceleration is not enough (not the reason) for aging less.

The reason for the asymmetric aging is considered the fact that the traveling twin has changed the frame in order to return home (the starship stopped, turned around towards Earth and accelerated again to the traveling velocity). Let’s analyze this in my tower-plane experiment, but now we plant mirrors along the path (equator) in order for the twins to be able to see each other all the time. In this way we are recreating the Earth-starship case, meaning that the plane is departing from the tower, travels (around the Earth, at the same height as the tower twin) a long distance (light years, if you wish), stops at the “destination”, turns around and returns. The twins can monitor each other (through the mirror system), like in the Earth-starship case, and the calculation & resulting aging difference is the same: the “stay-at-home” twin ages more. If the Earth is not spinning (the tower is at rest in the Earth-centered, non-rotating reference frame), the result is the same, the “stay-at-home” twin ages more. Now (with the Earth not spinning), what if, instead of turning around, the plane continues forward and only the telescope is turned, towards the front of the plane? It is like the plane had turn around … The twin aboard can see (through mirrors) that he/she is approaching the tower, exactly like he/she would do if the plane was turned … So, it is the “frame switch” the reason for the aging difference or the only reason is the velocity in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth?

As I wrote earlier, the geometrical explanations (while not wrong) are misleading. If you really want to understand time, time dilation & twin paradox, you have to study the GPS system and the Hafele-Keating experiment and to learn the 2 most important things/facts: near Earth, clocks at higher altitude tick faster than clocks on Earth's surface and, at the same altitude, the rate of a clock is greatest when it is at rest in the Earth-centered, non-rotating reference frame.

The big/important questions are: what makes the clocks to behave like that? and how? The answer for “what” is dark matter and for “how”, let’s use my model (see above “1. My hypothesis”):

Dark matter particles, attracted by the Earth’s gravity are forming an atmosphere (darkmosphere), which is (almost) static with respect to the above mentioned, Earth-centered, non-rotating reference frame. This means that the 2 facts we have to explain are: A - why clocks at lower dark matter density (higher altitude) are ticking faster than clocks on Earth's surface? and Bwhy, at the same dark matter density, the rate of a clock is greatest when it is at rest (with respect to the darkmosphere)?

The simplest way is to consider a light clock, where a pulse of light is bounced between two mirrors that are a known distance apart and the elapsed time is inferred by counting the number of round trips from one mirror to the other.

A. - According to my model the speed of light/photons through dark matter depends only on the speed between dark matter particles, which is constant (the re-emission speed), and the number of delaying absorptions/re-emissions, so at lower dark matter density (higher altitude) there are less delays and the photons are traveling faster, completing more round trips between the mirrors, counting more seconds between 2 events, so the light clock there is ticking faster than the one on Earth's surface (where the density is higher). [Note: you’ll see later why the speed of light/photons is a constant, c, when measured using local instruments, while photons appear to travel with different speeds when viewed from another place.]

B. - When the light clock is moving through darkmosphere, the photons are forced to do longer, diagonal trips between mirrors, so the time needed increases, the number of round trips decreases, less seconds being counted between 2 events, so the clock is ticking slower than the static one. Greater the velocity, slower the clock.

How about other clocks? Well, all the clocks are made of atoms/molecules and these are systems composed of electrically charged particles (protons, electrons) held together by electromagnetic forces. The force carrier for the electromagnetic force is considered to be a photon … so atoms and molecules are like complex light clocks, where instead of light photons bouncing between mirrors we have force carrier photons traveling between protons and electrons ... That’s why not only all other clocks are changing their “rates” as the light clock above, but also any structure held together by force carrier photons, including us …

If, let's say, an electron in the electron cloud of an atom moving through darkmosphere (at constant altitude) is hit by a light photon and changes its trajectory, all other "participants" (other electrons, nucleus) will be "informed" about it with a delay, compared to a static atom (in the same darkmosphere, at the same altitude/density), because force carrier photons have to travel longer, diagonal paths, as explained for the light clock. The response/reaction from the "participants" will arrive at the first electron also with a delay. The electron will also react, and the information about it will get to the others with a delay ... And so on ... And this is valid not only when a light photon hits an electron in the cloud, this happens all the time, because any change in position is also a change, important for the others, for the stability/integrity of the atom/system … So it's no wonder that a delay of force carrier particle triggers a "time dilation", a slow-down of all the processes based on it.

In conclusion: time dilation (or, better said, the disparate clock rates) is (are) caused by the differences in dark matter density (gravitational time dilation) or by the differences in speed with respect to the dark matter atmosphere (kinematic time dilation).

By the way, the above explanation is in agreement with no longer needed clock postulate.

3. The constancy of the speed of light in vacuum.

The reason for the speed of light in vacuum being a constant, while the photons are appearing to move at different speeds, is simple: we measure it using local instruments made of atoms/molecules (we have no other choice) and, as shown above, these are systems held together by the electromagnetic force, transmitted through force carrier photons, so they are also (and equally) affected by any change in photon speed.

The second is defined as exactly 9,192,631,770 times the period of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom […] Radiation of this kind is one of the most stable and reproducible phenomena of nature. The meter was defined as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole or in terms of a prototype meter bar, but now is defined as the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299792458 second.

The current definition of the meter is based on the constancy of the speed of light, so it’s useless (for the explanation of the constancy), but when we determined the speed of light in vacuum (and found it constant) we used the meter bar/stick, made of atoms/molecules ...

We seem to consider atoms and molecules very reliable, so we can use them to define the second and the meter in another way. We can pick a certain, stable molecule and define the second as N repetitions of a certain, reliable cycle, like a scissoring vibration (see here), and the meter as M time the (average) distance, D, between the nuclei of two atoms involved (e.g.: C and H in the CH2X2 group).

Now, if we consider one virtual force carrier photon “bouncing” between the nuclei of two of the atoms involved in the cycle above (e.g.: C and one of the H), we expect that the distance covered by this photon between the nuclei in one cycle, measured in D’s, to be the same, d. There are no reasons, as the molecule is stable, to have different distances traveled, measured in molecule related units (D), in 2 identical cycles. [Note 1: this is, in a way, implied by the first postulate.] [Note 2: real force carrier photons are exchanged all the time, without waiting for a return, like the virtual one above.]

So, in one second (N cycles), the virtual photon above travels a distance N∙d, measured in D’s, but one D is 1/M meters (see the above definition of the meter), so the distance traveled in one second by the photon is N∙d/M meters, which is constant, no matter how the "real" speed of force carrier photons (or any photon) changes (see above the influence of the dark matter density and the influence of the movement through dark matter) and how, consequently, the “speed”/pace and even the size of the atoms/molecules may also change. We have no choice but to rely on local atoms/molecules. That's why the speed of light in "vacuum" appears invariant.

4. Warped space-time / gravity wells.

We rely on our senses and instruments to judge what is real and what is not. That's why we considered the speed of light in vacuum and the size and pace of atoms/molecules constant, when in fact they are not quite so, as explained above. This is the reason why Einstein's space-time is warped.

With my dark matter model, it becomes obvious that the regions of space-time around massive objects are warped in order to map the changes in dark matter gas density, because an increase in dark matter density makes light/photons to move slower, which in turn makes our clocks to run slower, etc. It's that simple.

Questions like why there is still gravitational time dilation at the center of the Earth, where the space-time is flat? are now much easier to answer: at the center of the Earth, the density of dark matter gas is greatest, so right there is the greatest gravitational time dilation (lowest clock rate) in the “gravity well”.

5. Time. In Einstein's relativity, time is considered somehow similar to space dimensions, although there is no known way to go back in time. Time is considered as part of space-time, the "fabric" of the cosmos. It appears that the past still exists somewhere and that the future is also there, predetermined. For me, all these are unacceptable. Also, the behavior/rate of each clock is considered (implied) as being dictated by the time component of the space-time. How?

With my model, time becomes/is the result of counting nature's reliable cycles (years, days, atomic oscillations, etc.), a notion we invented in order to be able to compare different movements (speed, acceleration), to compare different processes (aging, growing, erosion, etc.), to organize our live (catch a plane, train, etc.) and to make order in events (history). Time travel is out of the question. Only present exists. The past "exists" only in our memory/records, or as information we receive from distant stars through light. The future is not predetermined. We can make some predictions (weather forecast, etc.) but never perfect.

And the behavior/rate of our clocks (and atoms/molecules) is determined, as I explained above, by the "real" speed of light, speed that depends on the density of dark matter atmosphere, and by the movement of the clock/atom/molecule through darkmosphere.

6. This makes the twin paradox easy to understand, as explained at “Time dilation”.

7. Gravitational lensing. The fact that light/photons can slow-down or speed-up through "vacuum" due to different densities of dark matter gas, explains why light bends near massive objects. It is simple refraction (only without dispersion, because there are no differences in speed for different wavelengths). And, if measured with local instruments, the speed of light is the same, c, in each and every point of the beam trajectory/path, in total agreement with Einstein's relativity.

8. With dark matter relativity it's also very easy to understand the Shapiro time delay: radar signals passing near a massive object are delayed because they travel trough denser dark matter gas.

9. So, we don't need to bend the space anymore. Space is not entwined with time. There is no space-time fabric. There are no wormholes. Space is just the boundless three-dimensional extent that contains all types of matter and energy.

The realization that the speed of light in "vacuum" only appears constant, due to the fact that all our instruments are made of atoms/molecules depending on the very same speed of light, to the fact that we rely on atoms/molecules when in reality they are not so reliable, makes everything logical, not only functional.

10. Frame-dragging, the fact that space-time rotates around rotating massive objects, translates into dark matter atmosphere rotation/dragging, much more logical, with the observation that the spaces between atoms / atom elements are too big, compared to dark matter particles, to have more/total rotational drag.

11. Another peculiar aspect in Einstein's relativity is the relativistic mass, a mass that depends on velocity. At speeds close to c, mass approaches infinity.

In my dark matter relativity, dark matter is like a gas made of particles similar to electrons but charge-less and probably lighter and smaller (see above). When an object/particle moves through this gas, it probably collides with many of these very light dark matter particles, resulting a very small drag [the drag is significant only in extremely high DM densities, near the black holes, being the real reason for binary black hole inspirals]. If, somehow, few of them stick to the traveling object, this will result in a tiny increase of the object's mass. At very high speeds, is expected that the object will undergo much more impacts with dark matter particles and therefore more of them may stick to it, increasing significantly its mass. This may be the logical explanation for Einstein's relativistic mass, if the increase is real, not just a mathematical consequence of "time dilation".

[I suspect that the increase in mass is real and that the Higgs boson is a short-lived particle made mainly of dark matter particles carried by the colliding protons acting like snow-plows. Maybe dark matter atmosphere and the Higgs field are in fact the same thing …]

12. The same approach may explain static mass increase, the increase in inertia/mass of a body when other masses are placed nearby, because more masses make dark matter atmosphere to become denser, meaning that more dark matter particles may stick to an object/particle moving through it ... and this includes not only translation movements, but also the vibrations (of the atoms in the molecules), rotations, etc..

13. In fact, the same approach explains why an object, made of atoms, weights more if heated: atoms inside vibrate/move faster, gaining more dark matter particles.

These effects (12 and 13), predicted and calculated using Einstein's relativity, are very very small, in agreement with my view/model: dark matter particles are very very light.

So, after more than 100 years of controversy (at least for non-physicists), relativity becomes logical, accessible for everyone through simple reasoning. The mathematics may remain the same, because Einstein's mathematical model, being based on sound, confirmed, principles and facts (including the postulated constancy of the speed of light in "vacuum", explained with my model), delivers good, accurate results. Using correctly what our (not so reliable) instruments "told" us, it can predict correctly what the same instruments will "tell" in new situations.

The new understanding of relativity provided by my dark matter model, combined with Einstein's mathematical model, can be considered a new relativity, dark matter relativity.

Experimental ways to prove dark matter relativity

Until now I explained, using my dark matter model, how Einstein's relativity peculiar predictions become logical, easy to understand. Now is the time to use my model in order to make other "peculiar" predictions, predictions that can be tested/confirmed by experiments.

All my predictions are based on the idea, mentioned above, that dark matter gas should behave like atmospheric gas and form dark matter atmospheres (darkmospheres) around massive objects, atmospheres that travel with the corresponding massive object, due to its gravitational attraction. This idea seems to be confirmed by what we learned studying the Bullet Cluster.

1. This prediction is about the size of the Earth’s darkmosphere. The idea is that at the boundary between Earth’s darkmosphere and the surrounding Sun’s darkmosphere the force acting on a test dark particle should be zero (the gravitational and centrifugal forces acting on the particle should cancel each other). A little closer to the Earth, the particle would “fall” towards Earth, being a part of Earth’s darkmosphere. A little further, the particle would “fall” outside the Earth’s influence, being a part of Sun’s darkmosphere. That means that the size of the Earth’s darkmosphere is roughly the size of the Earth’s Hill sphere.

I manage to test & confirm this prediction, but only theoretically, as you can see here (the end result is here). I suspect that the real/experimental size is a bit smaller, because of the friction/drag that may occur between the Earth’s darkmosphere and the surrounding Sun’s darkmosphere.

Speaking about the experiment: I suggest 2 (or more) optical clocks linked with a long towing cable and also connected through optical fiber. The upper clock would use thrust to climb in a spiral from the Earth, towing the second clock. Inside the Earth’s darkmosphere, the upper clock should tick faster than the lower one, all the time. When the upper clock gets out of the darkmosphere, it should suddenly tick slower than the other, because of the very fast movement through the Sun’s darkmosphere (kinematic time dilation). Then, after the other/towed clock also gets out of the Earth’s darkmosphere, the first clock should tick slower then the other, if the movement is towards the Sun, faster, if the movement is opposite the Sun, and at the same rate if they are following the Earth’s orbit.

2. This prediction is the first I imagined, because it was the most obvious:

If we have one clock on Earth, at one pole, that clock will not be affected at all by speed-related "time dilation", being static in relation with the Earth's darkmosphere that contains it. Another clock, situated on Earth's orbit around the Sun, moving with the same speed as the Earth (and the first clock on it), but far outside Earth's darkmosphere (it may move in opposite direction), in the Sun's darkmosphere, will experience significant speed-related "time dilation", because it moves fast through the darkmosphere that contains it.

According to special relativity, both clocks should experience the same speed-related "time dilation", but I'm not sure what a thorough application of general relativity may reveal ...

There will be also differences due to "gravitational time dilation", between the two clocks, but this time I don't expect disagreements with Einstein's relativity.

It would be costly, but this idea should be tested, by sending at least one atomic clock in space, around the Sun, as considered above.

3. This prediction is based on the idea (see above) that the rate of a clock depends on the density of dark matter gas that contains it. There are atomic clocks able to detect the tiny changes in darkmospheric pressure/density determined by a very small change in altitude (gravitational "time dilation"). So, if we have two atomic clocks, one at each pole (to avoid speed-related "time dilation" - see the previous prediction) we may use them to detect "seasonal" changes in Earth's darkmosphere pressure. In my opinion, in spring/autumn, when one pole is oriented forwards and the other backwards (in relation with Earth's rotation around the Sun), we should detect an increase in dark matter pressure (and density) with the clock at the front (the clock will run slower) and a decrease with the one at the rear (the clock will run faster).

4. The clocks above (at the poles) should also have summer/winter differences in rate, because at the pole oriented towards the Sun the pressure/density of dark matter atmosphere is lower (resulting a higher clock rate) than at the pole situated at the far side. Just calculate/determine the points on Sun-Earth line where gravitational and centrifugal forces cancel each other (see the first prediction) and you’ll see that the Earth’s darkmosphere is thicker at the far side, resulting a higher pressure/density at the ground level for that side.

5. This prediction/test is based on the same ideas as no. 3 and no. 4, but is aimed to detect, if possible, daily changes in dark matter pressure. This time a clock remains at one pole but the other is placed close to the equator, so it can make daily rotations around the Earth's center. If the clocks are accurate enough, we may detect daily variations in the rotating clock, due to the differences in dark matter pressure between the forward section and the rear section of Earth's darkmosphere (in relation with Earth's rotation around the Sun) and also due to the differences in dark matter pressure between the far side and closer to the Sun side of the Earth’s darkmosphere (night/day variations).

Conclusion: This new relativity, dark matter relativity, not only validates Einstein's relativity, but is also validated by it and by all the experiments that confirm it, since the only difference is that the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum is now explained rather than postulated. Basically, dark matter relativity makes Einstein's relativity logical not only functional. But the most important aspect of this theory is that, if confirmed by the experiments above, it will greatly improve our understanding of time, space and, last but not least, dark matter. It is ridiculous that we are still unable to detect and understand dark matter, a stuff that is much more abundant than ordinary matter, so different approaches, like the one above, should be considered desirable, properly analyzed and tested experimentally. Maybe not everything I wrote is correct, but I believe and hope that the basic idea is.

• Replies 117
• Created

#### Posted Images

You say the calculations are the same as for Einstein.

How are they the same for the Twins?

The twins is an exercise in special relativity, which is confined to inertial frames

Flying round the world is not an inertial frame.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

When I studied relativity I didn't like it because it was not logical.

It really bugs me when people say “not logical” to mean “it didn’t make sense”. This has nothing to do with logic.

Anyway, this idea sounds a bit like Lorentz ether theory, which is identical to relativity but with the addition of “ether” (your dark matter) to explain the effects mechanically.

One immediate question, wouldn’t you expect various effects to vary depending on the local density of dark matter? Can you provide some (quantitative) confirmation of that?

You have various qualitative predictions; can you put numbers on any of these?

Also, several seem to be based on measuring our movement through dark matter. Have you considered all the experiments that have failed to detect our motion through the ether and the implications for your idea?

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Strange said:

It really bugs me when people say “not logical” to mean “it didn’t make sense”. This has nothing to do with logic.

English is not my first language, so I'm not going to discuss semantic.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Also, several seem to be based on measuring our movement through dark matter. Have you considered all the experiments that have failed to detect our motion through the ether and the implications for your idea?

What motion? We are (almost) static in our darkmosphere. And with c constant (as explained) + time dilation acknowledged (and explained), what experiments do you think I should consider as possible problems for my "ether theory"?

By the way, ether was an invention, while "my" DM was inferred from observations ...

The first prediction has some numbers. For the second one is easy to estimate (and detect) the difference in elapsed time between no movement and 30 km/s movement ... For the rest it's a bit harder.

##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DanMP said:

When I studied relativity I didn't like it because it was not logical.

I have a lot of sympathy with this because I don't like it either.

But no one has been clever enough to do better.

18 minutes ago, DanMP said:

English is not my first language, so I'm not going to discuss semantic.

I asked you a polite technical question about your thesis.

Did you not understand it or are you developing an answer?

##### Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Strange said:

One immediate question, wouldn’t you expect various effects to vary depending on the local density of dark matter? Can you provide some (quantitative) confirmation of that?

Besides gravitational time dilation? What other effects I should expect?

##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DanMP said:

When I studied relativity I didn't like it because it was not logical.

Around 2000 years ago it was logical to believe that the Sun was the center of the universe...we saw it rise in the East and "circle"the Earth to set in the West. A great scientist was incarcerated for daring to suggest that it was the Earth orbiting the Sun, and the Sun was situated on the outskirts of a humdrum galaxy, with billions  and billions of other galaxies.

I havn't the time to read your "book/post"at this stage but many of the principals of SR were verified in vacuum chambers on Earth.

Edited by beecee
##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, studiot said:

I asked you a polite technical question about your thesis.

Did you not understand it or are you developing an answer?

Sorry, I had to open/start the laptop to answer your question. For Strange was enough the tablet.

4 hours ago, studiot said:

You say the calculations are the same as for Einstein.

How are they the same for the Twins?

The twins is an exercise in special relativity, which is confined to inertial frames

Flying round the world is not an inertial frame.

Well, the experiment proposed by twin paradox was not performed. Still, we kind of confirmed it using atomic clocks on airplanes and satellites flying round the Earth ...

There are no perfect inertial frames. There is always some rotation.

Anyway, the reason for needing the laptop is to post a link where the Sagnac effect in the case of a flexible loop of optical fiber moving like a conveyor belt (search those words in the text) is considered as: "essentially a one-dimensional problem". I think that my tower-airplane experiment can be considered as a one-dimensional problem as well.

35 minutes ago, beecee said:

... many of the principals of SR were verified in vacuum chambers on Earth.

So what? My theory agrees with both SR and GR results. You should read my post ...

##### Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, DanMP said:

So what? My theory agrees with both SR and GR results. You should read my post ...

With what I have read, you seem to be saying that DM somehow is the cause of time dilation.

I would add that in a particle accelerator there is no interaction with DM, and of course time dilation is only observable from another frame of reference...Everyone in any frame sees his or her time run at one second per second. And what about length contraction?

I'm no professional but your DM relativity seems rather superfuous.

ps: and yes certainly I should read all your lengthy post.

##### Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DanMP said:

Besides gravitational time dilation? What other effects I should expect?

It have no idea. But for example in 4 you claim that time dilation is due to increasing density of DM at the centre of the Earth. However there is very little DM around the Earth and no evidence it’s density increases locally. However, the density increases dramatically towards the centre of the galaxy but we don’t see any significant increase in time dilation.

Your assumption that there is more dark matter around massive objects to cause the effects we ascribe to gravity does not match any model of dark matter that I am aware of.

##### Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

It have no idea. But for example in 4 you claim that time dilation is due to increasing density of DM at the centre of the Earth. However there is very little DM around the Earth and no evidence it’s density increases locally. However, the density increases dramatically towards the centre of the galaxy but we don’t see any significant increase in time dilation.

DM was not directly detected, so we don't know for sure how much DM is around the Earth. Plus, how can we make a distinction between the gravitational pull of a planet and the pull of the planet + its darkmosphere? In this respect, I think that there is much more DM, and the one you mentioned as increasing in density near the center of the galaxy, is the one not clearly associated with massive objects. I think that, near massive objects, DM density depends more on the mass of the object and the distance to it, than on the galaxy DM that surrounds the object's darkmosphere.

In my opinion/theory the best dark matter (density) detector we can have is an atomic clock.

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

Your assumption that there is more dark matter around massive objects to cause the effects we ascribe to gravity does not match any model of dark matter that I am aware of.

Well, in all models DM interacts gravitationally, so what do you think it may prevent DM to be more abundant/dense around massive objects attracting it gravitationally than far from them?

1 hour ago, Strange said:

in 4 you claim that time dilation is due to increasing density of DM at the centre of the Earth

I didn't say (exactly) that. DM density is increasing towards the centre.

Anyway, the font there is bigger not because I intended to be, as being something important ... it was just some editor glitch. I noticed 2 instances but I didn't bother to edit the post. Sorry.

##### Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, DanMP said:

DM was not directly detected, so we don't know for sure how much DM is around the Earth. Plus, how can we make a distinction between the gravitational pull of a planet and the pull of the planet + its darkmosphere? In this respect, I think that there is much more DM, and the one you mentioned as increasing in density near the center of the galaxy, is the one not clearly associated with massive objects. I think that, near massive objects, DM density depends more on the mass of the object and the distance to it, than on the galaxy DM that surrounds the object's darkmosphere.

You seem to be ignoring what we know about the distribution, quantity and properties of dark matter in favour of your own guesses.

What evidence do you have that there is more dark matter around massive objects?

You say that tiny (unevidenced) differences between dark matter pressure around the Earth cause measurable effects and yet the large increase in density towards the centre of the galaxy has no significant effect.

Also if your concept of dark matter were to reproduce all the effects of GR then we would need something else (“dark matter 2.0”) to explain the effects currently ascribed to dark matter.

47 minutes ago, DanMP said:

In my opinion/theory the best dark matter (density) detector we can have is an atomic clock.

This a classic example of the fallacy of begging the question.

This would also seem to have the same sort of problems as push gravity of requiring physically impossible properties.

##### Share on other sites

Guys, please at least read DanMP 's full post before you shoot it down. I know we had a lot of cranks that what to "prove" relativity is wrong but this is not that.

Half of the comments are related to his first sentence. Please go over that.

##### Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DanMP said:

Well, the experiment proposed by twin paradox was not performed. Still, we kind of confirmed it using atomic clocks on airplanes and satellites flying round the Earth ...

There are no perfect inertial frames. There is always some rotation.

Anyway, the reason for needing the laptop is to post a link where the Sagnac effect in the case of a flexible loop of optical fiber moving like a conveyor belt (search those words in the text) is considered as: "essentially a one-dimensional problem". I think that my tower-airplane experiment can be considered as a one-dimensional problem as well.

Thank you for replying.

As you noted to beecee your proposals (they have not achieved the status of a theory) take a lot of reading through and I am trying to give them serious consideration.

To have any chance of success they must be at least self consistent, even if they conflict in some way with some other proposals or theories.

One possible way to distinguish that I see would be to test the response at Lagrange points, where I would expect differences to arise from your mechanism and other  proposals.

I have already noted one inconsistency, namely that your version (sorry I was not totally clear) of the Twins activity is not the same as that proposed by Einstein, which was linear.

So I don't see why you originally maintained that all your calculations produce the same results as his when they are describing different dynamics.
You have even repeated this claim to beecee, subsequent to my post.

A further inconsistency now arises where you suggest there is maximum density at the centre of the Earth.

What is the gravity at the exact centre?

So let us try to put your proposals on a self consistent footing before going too far?

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

Guys, please at least read DanMP 's full post before you shoot it down. I know we had a lot of cranks that what to "prove" relativity is wrong but this is not that.

Half of the comments are related to his first sentence. Please go over that.

Yes a more friendly approach is warranted. +1

We really don't have any even nearly working proposals for dark matter or dark energy so all ideas merit investigation.

As a(relevant) aside in the early 1990s I was involved in the UK bridge strengthening programme where UK bridges were assessed for load carrying capacity and either passed as fit or stengthened to meet the then upcoming increase in lorry weights.

One issue that came to light was that the reinforced concrete slabs of many older bridges were much much stronger than they should have been from theory.
A parallel with dark energy?
I initiated and was involved in successful research to investigate this phenomenon. As a result many (small) bridges that would otherwise have had to be demolished were saved.

##### Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, studiot said:

One possible way to distinguish that I see would be to test the response at Lagrange points, where I would expect differences to arise from your mechanism and other  proposals.

I don't understand what you mean with Lagrange points. I know what they are, but I don't get the issue with them.

I have already noted one inconsistency, namely that your version (sorry I was not totally clear) of the Twins activity is not the same as that proposed by Einstein, which was linear.

Linear or one-dimensional, I think it is the same thing. The same (Lorentz) transformations may be applied, as you can see in the link I gave.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

A further inconsistency now arises where you suggest there is maximum density at the centre of the Earth.

What is the gravity at the exact centre?

The reason for "maximum density at the centre of the Earth" is not the gravity at the centre, but the pressure exerted by the layers of dark matter atmosphere above. That's why my model is better. With GR is counter-intuitive.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Thank you for replying.

You are welcome

Many thanks for your kind words and constructive questions.

2 hours ago, Silvestru said:

Guys, please at least read DanMP 's full post before you shoot it down. I know we had a lot of cranks that what to "prove" relativity is wrong but this is not that.

Half of the comments are related to his first sentence. Please go over that.

Thank you!

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Strange said:

What evidence do you have that there is more dark matter around massive objects?

Relativity + the fact that DM is attracted by massive objects (see Bullet Cluster). I repeat, do you know any reason why a particle attracted by a massive object would not tend to go towards it and accumulate near the object like an atmosphere?

By the way, how can you tell that a planet has an atmosphere, using just its gravity (not absorption/emission of light or any other interaction with ordinary matter)? I don't think you/we can. The atmosphere gravitational pull is assimilated with the one of the planet. The same (in fact worse) is with DM atmosphere.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

You say that tiny (unevidenced) differences between dark matter pressure around the Earth cause measurable effects and yet the large increase in density towards the centre of the galaxy has no significant effect.

If there is a gas-like dark matter in the galaxy, the propriety of DM particles to suffer gravitational attraction is enough evidence for this gas to accumulate near Earth like an atmosphere, with its pressure/density increasing towards the centre.

The large increase in density you mentioned (by the way, why this increase in density towards the centre of galaxy is possible, but the increase towards the centre of the Earth is not?!?) does have effects, but I didn't investigate the matter to be able to point them. On the other hand, here, near Earth, we tested and re-tested, that's why I am pretty confident in what I claimed.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Also if your concept of dark matter were to reproduce all the effects of GR then we would need something else (“dark matter 2.0”) to explain the effects currently ascribed to dark matter.

Yes, we'll need to explain dark matter, but this isn't something new ... And, in a way,  this is the beauty of physics/science: the quest of understanding nature never ends ...

##### Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Silvestru said:

Guys, please at least read DanMP 's full post before you shoot it down. I know we had a lot of cranks that what to "prove" relativity is wrong but this is not that.

Half of the comments are related to his first sentence. Please go over that.

Fair comment. There is a lot there that needs answering. I will wait till I have more time and a proper keyboard!

##### Share on other sites

Your description of the relationship between dark matter and gravity seems a bit haphazard.

Can you not offer mathematical formula or procedure to determine this?

I say this because of several of your replies.

36 minutes ago, DanMP said:

If there is a gas-like dark matter in the galaxy, the propriety of DM particles to suffer gravitational attraction is enough evidence for this gas to accumulate near Earth like an atmosphere, with its pressure/density increasing towards the centre.

1 hour ago, DanMP said:
3 hours ago, studiot said:

A further inconsistency now arises where you suggest there is maximum density at the centre of the Earth.

What is the gravity at the exact centre?

The reason for "maximum density at the centre of the Earth" is not the gravity at the centre, but the pressure exerted by the layers of dark matter atmosphere above. That's why my model is better. With GR is counter-intuitive.

The reason fluids, such as the ocean or atmosphere have pressure at all is due to gravity.

Not as you are suggesting that the gravity is due to the pressure!

So what is "The pressure of dark matter" given as some sort of rule or formula?

1 hour ago, DanMP said:
3 hours ago, studiot said:

One possible way to distinguish that I see would be to test the response at Lagrange points, where I would expect differences to arise from your mechanism and other  proposals.

I don't understand what you mean with Lagrange points. I know what they are, but I don't get the issue with them.

There is no "issue" with Lagrange points.

Any theory need a way of testing it.We have no access to the centre of the Earth or the centre of the galaxy, but might be able to access a Lagrange point.

2 hours ago, DanMP said:
3 hours ago, studiot said:

I have already noted one inconsistency, namely that your version (sorry I was not totally clear) of the Twins activity is not the same as that proposed by Einstein, which was linear.

Linear or one-dimensional, I think it is the same thing. The same (Lorentz) transformations may be applied, as you can see in the link I gave.

Not at all, though one dimensional can be linear.

A one dimensional equation of motion that is linear would be s = vt

Where s is distance, t is time and v is velocity.

This is amenable to special relativity.

An equation of motion of the form

s = ut + 0.5 ft2 is non linear and not amenable to special relativity,

Where additional letters stand for u = initial velocity, f = acceleration.

As a matter of interest the equation

s = vt + c

Where c is a constant is also amenable to special relativity and is called affine.

##### Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Yes, we'll need to explain dark matter, but this isn't something new ... And, in a way,  this is the beauty of physics/science: the quest of understanding nature never ends ...

I will get to your other points later but you may have missed my point here. You are using something you call dark matter to explain everything currently described by GR. But physicist use the term dark matter as a placeholder for the explanation of things that cannot be explained by GR. So even if your idea were correct, it would not explain the things that DM was supposed to explain.

More later ...

##### Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

Your description of the relationship between dark matter and gravity seems a bit haphazard.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

The reason fluids, such as the ocean or atmosphere have pressure at all is due to gravity.

Not as you are suggesting that the gravity is due to the pressure!

You got it wrong. I wrote:

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

The reason for "maximum density at the centre of the Earth" is not the gravity at the centre, but the pressure exerted by the layers of dark matter atmosphere above.

and I meant that at the centre the gravity may be zero, but the layers of DM above, where the gravity is present, assure maximum DM pressure/density at the centre (lowest clock rate).

##### Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

You are using something you call dark matter to explain everything currently described by GR. But physicist use the term dark matter as a placeholder for the explanation of things that cannot be explained by GR.

DM is inferred from observations and is considered real by most of the physicists. It isn't just a placeholder for the explanation of things that cannot be explained by GR. If not real, why this hunt for DM detection?

Furthermore, if DM is not real, GR is wrong. Are you claiming that GR is wrong?!?

48 minutes ago, Strange said:

So even if your idea were correct, it would not explain the things that DM was supposed to explain.

Why not? What exactly it would not explain?

GR works just fine if DM is real ... and my idea/theory/model is using this DM to make relativity intuitive. There are no differences in results. The difference is that with this DM model is easier to understand GR and to make new predictions.

##### Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DanMP said:

DM is inferred from observations and is considered real by most of the physicists. It isn't just a placeholder for the explanation of things that cannot be explained by GR. If not real, why this hunt for DM detection?

The confusion is caused because there is the word “matter” in the name “dark matter”.

Dark matter might not be a form of matter at all. It might be a sign that we don’t fully understand gravity.

So, until we know what causes the effects we see, the name “dark matter” is just a placeholder.

(Of course, most physicists think it is some form of matter because the other theories don’t explain all of the evidence so well.)

30 minutes ago, DanMP said:

GR works just fine if DM is real ... and my idea/theory/model is using this DM to make relativity intuitive. There are no differences in results. The difference is that with this DM model is easier to understand GR and to make new predictions.

If you want to give dark matter properties that allow it to reproduce GR (a challenge) AND still behave like dark matter, then you have your work cut out.

For this to be taken seriously you will need a detailed model that is able to make accurate, quantitative predictions that match observations.

More later ...

##### Share on other sites

21 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm no professional but your DM relativity seems rather superfuous.

ps: and yes certainly I should read all your lengthy post.

I'm still of the opinion [for what it is worth as an amateur] that this is rather superfluous at best. You mentioned DanMP, that this does not dispute GR but aligns with it, and yet you claim that we live in a 3D universe, rather then a 4D universe, and that spacetime is invalid [the principal postulate of GR] or words to that effect. And while I'm glad your hypothetical is devoid of maths [as I am mathematically illiterate] I also accept that maths is the language of physics and a requirement of any potential theory/model.You also raise the issue of time travel. Time travel of course is evident by tiny amounts everytime an astronaut returns from the ISS. Forward time travel is totally demonstrable.  https://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed

In your extensive detailed rundown on your hypothesis, while claiming inspiraling BHs may be caused by DM, I fail to see any mention of gravitational radiation or ripples in spacetime. And what about observationally verified evidence of BHs? There would be no DM congregating around a BH as it would all be swallowed. How does that explain dormant BHs and the subsequent spacetime curvature? Length contraction as verified under relativity also is not mentioned.

My own feelings and as I already mentioned, is that it appears superfluous at best, and contrived at worst, and in essence while perhaps explaining exactly what GR does, it does not explain anymore. And for any incumbent theory [GR] to be displaced, the new hypothesis needs to explain more and make further predictions, or falsify that incumbent model.

13 hours ago, Silvestru said:

Guys, please at least read DanMP 's full post before you shoot it down. I know we had a lot of cranks that what to "prove" relativity is wrong but this is not that.

Half of the comments are related to his first sentence. Please go over that.

Agreed. My first comment was in regards to his claim that GR was not logical. I was not aware at that time that English was not his first language. I agree that while anti GR "experts" and anti "science in general experts" are a dime a dozen here and elsewhere, that certainly DanMP does not at this stage appear to be one of that brigade nor his detailed rundown of his hypothesis.

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, beecee said:

... that spacetime is invalid [the principal postulate of GR] or words to that effect.

As a (correct) topographic map is not invalid, nor is spacetime. They are both useful tools, but not real representations of reality.

What postulate refers to spacetime?

3 hours ago, beecee said:

I also accept that maths is the language of physics and a requirement of any potential theory/model.

GR math, as I said, may be used, for now. I even used it at my first prediction.

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Time travel of course is evident by tiny amounts everytime an astronaut returns from the ISS. Forward time travel is totally demonstrable.

I wouldn't call it time travel, but ok, forward time travel is possible.

3 hours ago, beecee said:

I fail to see any mention of gravitational radiation or ripples in spacetime ...

I couldn't write everything in one post. It was already too long ... Even now, I'm reluctant to write about them, because I would have to reveal (and debate) my DM based model of gravity first. For now, just use/consider the GR model as a tool. I'll reveal the real meaning (in my interpretation) one day.

3 hours ago, beecee said:

There would be no DM congregating around a BH as it would all be swallowed

I'm not sure that DM can be "swallowed".

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Length contraction as verified under relativity also is not mentioned.

I didn't mention it specifically, but I wrote about it where I said that we rely on atoms. I consider it real, as predicted by relativity.

3 hours ago, beecee said:

And for any incumbent theory [GR] to be displaced, the new hypothesis needs to explain more and make further predictions, or falsify that incumbent model.

To explain more, yes, maybe, but why further predictions? There are more than enough presented.

9 hours ago, Strange said:

For this to be taken seriously you will need a detailed model that is able to make accurate, quantitative predictions that match observations.

I think that for a speculations forum is enough. I just can't do (much) more. Maybe someone better than me will continue my work and/or some predictions will be tested and confirmed ...

Edited by DanMP
##### Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, DanMP said:

As a (correct) topographic map is not invalid, nor is spacetime. They are both useful tools, but not real representations of reality.

They are descriptions of reality under the auspices of GR, just as real as a magnetic field. Something need not be physical to exist.

Quote

What postulate refers to spacetime?

OK, wrong word...again  spacetime is the unified multi-dimensional framework within which we locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of spatial coordinates and time. The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light is invariant and also allows a description of reality that is common for all observers in the  universe regardless of their relative motion. Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers....And finally of course within GR, spacetime is described in terms of curvature in the presence of mass, be that baryonic mass or DM mass.

Quote

I'm not sure that DM can be "swallowed".

If it acts gravitationally it must and should be "swallowed"by a BH.

Quote

I didn't mention it specifically, but I wrote about it where I said that we rely on atoms. I consider it real, as predicted by relativity.

Predicted and explained by SR, but not by DM...at least not the way I see it.

Quote

To explain more, yes, maybe, but why further predictions? There are more than enough presented.

What I'm saying is that if it is going to replace GR, it must explain and/or predict more. If it just simply does what GR does, and predicts what GR predicts, GR stands as is. That is the accepted incumbent verified model. In other words it is superfluous.

Don't get me wrong. If it even does as you claim, and matches GR in every respect, then you deserve hearty congratulations and even recognition. But as yet, I'm not convinced, but of course it aint me you need convincing...I'm just a poor old retired maintanaince Fitter and Machinist.

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

I couldn't write everything in one post. It was already too long ... Even now, I'm reluctant to write about them, because I would have to reveal (and debate) my DM based model of gravity first. For now, just use/consider the GR model as a tool. I'll reveal the real meaning (in my interpretation) one day.

Your above was in reply to specifically  this.................

3 hours ago, beecee said:

In your extensive detailed rundown on your hypothesis, while claiming inspiraling BHs may be caused by DM, I fail to see any mention of gravitational radiation or ripples in spacetime.

I'm really at somewhat of a loss after the extensive Opening post, as to why the reluctance on the issue of GWs? And really, just using GR as a tool understates the reality that it extensivelly and successfully describes our universe with.

Edited by beecee

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account