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

[DanMP]

On 8/25/2018 at 11:41 PM, beecee said:

... no cohesion and build up, so I see no reason why it would  congregate around any BH. It would simply, or should simply just fall in not ...

BHs are not, as far as I know, appearing out of nothing. They are formed from massive objects. Massive objects are attracting DM particles, so a dark matter atmosphere would be formed around them, as the halo we observed around galaxies is suggesting (see Bulet Cluster). A new incoming  DM particle cannot pass straight through this thick darkmosphere to be swallowed by the, now formed, black hole. It'll bump in the numerous DM particles around the BH, and will get to be absorbed/swallowed only when the particles in front of it were swallowed. If you "drop" a hydrogen molecule from a plane, it would not just fall to the ground and attach to it.

[beecee]

8 minutes ago, DanMP said:

BHs are not, as far as I know, appearing out of nothing. They are formed from massive objects. Massive objects are attracting DM particles, so a dark matter atmosphere would be formed around them, as the halo we observed around galaxies is suggesting (see Bulet Cluster). A new incoming  DM particle cannot pass straight through this thick darkmosphere to be swallowed by the, now formed, black hole. It'll bump in the numerous DM particles around the BH, and will get to be absorbed/swallowed only when the particles in front of it were swallowed. If you "drop" a hydrogen molecule from a plane, it would not just fall to the ground and attach to it.

I don't see it that way I'm afraid....Normal baryonic matter in the form of stars or other objects are ripped asunder to form accretion disks that gradually spiral into the BH. DM since it doesn't interact electromagnetically, does not congregate to form stars and/or planets as far as we know, so would be more directly and easily  swallowed by the BH. I don't accept that any DM atmosphere is going to form.

Also most BH's would have angular momentum which also would not be any reason for any DM to congregate in an atmospheric like manner.

[DanMP]

19 hours ago, swansont said:

Also, I'm not seeing anything in the way of a mathematical model. You need that and/or testable predictions ...

I offered testable predictions. And I even tested, mathematically (using the math of GR, which is also the math of my theory), my first prediction (about the size of the Earth's darkmosphere). Follow the links I offered ...

By the way, I offered a nice mathematical demonstration in my Fizeau-Sagnac thread, but nobody cared to comment it, although there is a demonstration of how light travels through (and is entrained by) matter. I even mentioned you there. You appeared interested by the subject ...

42 minutes ago, beecee said:

We also of course see that spacetime curvature evidenced by gravitational lensing.

As I wrote/implied in my first post, gravitational lensing can be explained by a refraction caused by the darkmosphere.

A similar refraction (but with dispersion) is observed through our air atmosphere, especially when we observe stars closer to the horizon.

34 minutes ago, beecee said:

I don't accept that any DM atmosphere is going to form.

Why not?

And how you explain the observed halo I mentioned and the fact that DM density increases towards the centre of the galaxies?

[beecee]

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

.As I wrote/implied in my first post, gravitational lensing can be explained by a refraction caused by the darkmosphere.

We don't need any darkmpsphere when the fact is that light travels in geodesics through curved spacetime.

Quote

A similar refraction (but with dispersion) is observed through our air atmosphere, especially when we observe stars closer to the horizon.

Sure, so?

 

Quote

Why not?

Because it would fall into the BH.

 

Quote

And how you explain the observed halo I mentioned and the fact that DM density increases towards the centre of the galaxies?

So does baryonic matter of all persuasions including stars, and the halo of DM you speak of is surrounding the galaxy as a whole, not the BH. Any BH and probably the SMBH at our own galactic center will sweep out an area devoid of matter and become essentially dormant which our own is...at least in comparison to AGN and Quasars.

[DanMP]

42 minutes ago, beecee said:

Also most BH's would have angular momentum which also would not be any reason for any DM to congregate in an atmospheric like manner.

1. BHs angular momentum is "inherited" from ordinary matter.

2. The darkmosphere is formed before the massive object becomes a BH and begins to "swallow"

3. DM is rotating far less than ordinary matter, because in order to rotate it would need an initial angular momentum or to "borrow" it from ordinary matter but, similar to neutrinos, DM particles seem to seldom interact with ordinary matter particles:

The only reason we can detect a handful of neutrinos from the sun, for example, is because there are billions and billions passing every second. And the failed attempts to detect dark matter particles suggest they interact even less. 

Near the black holes, where both ordinary and dark matter are very dense, there would be more interactions, hence the "frame" (darkmosphere) dragging.

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, DanMP said:

1. BHs angular momentum is "inherited" from ordinary matter.

Yep, so?

Quote

2. The darkmosphere is formed before the massive object becomes a BH and begins to "swallow"

It ends up swallowed by the BH and any darkmosphere of the type you seem to be projecting would also have a hard job forming around the plasma state of a star's atmosphere I suggest.

 

Quote

3. DM is rotating far less than ordinary matter, because in order to rotate it would need an initial angular momentum or to "borrow" it from ordinary matter but, similar to neutrinos, DM particles seem to seldom interact with ordinary matter particles:

Be that, or be that not the case, there would be no DM type atmosphere around a BH 

 

Quote

Near the black holes, where both ordinary and dark matter are very dense, there would be more interactions, hence the "frame" (darkmosphere) dragging.

Baryonic matter accretion disks form at about 3 Schwarzchild radius from memory and even at this distance, is glowing and mostly in a plasma state [depending on BH size] Again a BH would sweep out an area devoid of matter around the EH and like our own SMBH be largely dormant. 

[DanMP]

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

We don't need any darkmpsphere when ...

Nor reject such an (alternative) explanation.

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

Sure, so?

So, refraction is a good explanation.

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

the halo of DM you speak of is surrounding the galaxy as a whole, not the BH

The behavior of DM particles should be the same for any massive object (e.g.: stars), not only for galaxies, so any massive object can an should have a DM "halo".

[Strange]

On 26/08/2018 at 7:15 AM, DanMP said:

Why?

Oh good grief.

You are claiming that some sort of fluid (that has very specific properties in the way it interacts) can be described by the mathematics of GR.

Why should anyone just accept this claim? Why should the geometry of 4D manifolds math the behaviour of subatomic particles?

I'm sorry, but I have seen so many "explanations" (springs, force fields, new types of particles, superfluids, supersolids, aether, ...) all claiming that they can be described by the mathematics of GR. It makes no sense, why should fluid flow (or any other model) be described by the geometry of pseudo-Riemannian manifolds? There is absolutely no reason to accept this claim. You need a mathematical proof that your model is equivalent to GR. Otherwise anyone can make up any old nonsense ("it is caused by unicorn poo") and say "but the mathematics are the same as GR". 

And if the mathematics of your model are the same as GR, then your model will produce the same results as GR. Therefore you will not be able to distinguish it from GR. And therefore it will be rejected by the use of Occam's razor.

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Nor reject such an (alternative) explanation.

Again at best any hypothetical that explains what the incumbent model does, particularly when that incumbent model is overwhelmingly successful, will not displace said model. To do so, it needs to invalidate the said model or explain more.

Quote

So, refraction is a good explanation.

The small effect of refraction with regards to gravitational lensing is already taken into consideration I'm pretty sure.

Quote

The behavior of DM particles should be the same for any massive object (e.g.: stars), not only for galaxies, so any massive object can an should have a DM "halo".

No it shouldn't. If it doesnt have EMFs to help it accrete.

[DanMP]

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

any darkmosphere of the type you seem to be projecting would also have a hard job forming around the plasma state of a star's atmosphere I suggest.

Why exactly?

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

Baryonic matter accretion disks form at about 3 Schwarzchild radius from memory and even at this distance, is glowing and mostly in a plasma state [depending on BH size] Again a BH would sweep out an area devoid of matter around the EH and like our own SMBH be largely dormant. 

So there isn't, and never was, very dense, rotating, ordinary matter anywhere near the BH?!?

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

... will not displace said model. To do so, it needs to invalidate the said model or explain more.

or to make valid predictions using the new interpretation, while being in agreement with the existent theory results.

13 minutes ago, beecee said:

The small effect of refraction with regards to gravitational lensing is already taken into consideration I'm pretty sure.

Not for DM.

14 minutes ago, beecee said:

No it shouldn't. If it doesnt have EMFs to help it accrete.

Read my comment again, while keeping in mind that the halo around galaxies is a DM halo ...

26 minutes ago, Strange said:

You are claiming that some sort of fluid (that has very specific properties in the way it interacts) can be described by the mathematics of GR.

No, I said that my DM model (which obeys what we know about DM) can be used for a better, phenomenological, understanding of relativity, while for calculations, we can use the GR math, because there is no way to change the mathematics simply by replacing a postulate with an explanation stating the very same thing. In my first prediction I showed that what I deduced using my model and reasoning was confirmed by the GR math. The same would probably happen for all the predictions, if GR math is used correctly.

[Strange]

54 minutes ago, DanMP said:

The behavior of DM particles should be the same for any massive object (e.g.: stars), not only for galaxies, so any massive object can an should have a DM "halo".

You can make this claim, but you need to demonstrate it is true with appropriate mathematics (which probably means a simulation).

If DM particle interacted (with each other) enough to cool and form dense areas around all objects then they would not form the large haloes around galaxies. This is not just a guess or an assumption; it is shown by simulating the behaviour of non-interacting dark matter compared with normal matter.

You can't have it both ways: either dark matter does not interact and it forms galactic haloes or it does interact and doesn't form them.

[DanMP]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

If DM particle interacted (with each other) enough to cool and form dense areas around all objects then they would not form the large haloes around galaxies. This is not just a guess or an assumption; it is shown by simulating the behaviour of non-interacting dark matter compared with normal matter.

You can't have it both ways: either dark matter does not interact and it forms galactic haloes or it does interact and doesn't form them.

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

[Strange]

1 minute ago, DanMP said:

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

Because it would require the particles to cool (slow) down. They can only do this if they interact (as in the way clouds of gas and dust collapse to form stars and planets). If they do not interact then they will continue on their orbits around the galaxy and not form locally dense areas.

It doesn't really matter if you understand it or not. That is what the physics shows. Although you probably should learn more about the properties and behaviour of dark matter before tying to come up with your own theory.

[DanMP]

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

they will continue on their orbits around the galaxy and not form locally dense areas.

What orbits? In order to rotate, a particle should have an angular momentum ... 

For ordinary particles, a tiny initial angular momentum produced the rotations we know, due to the fact that OM was able to collapse. It was not the case for DM.

DM particles, like the molecules in a gas, can just bump into each other (weak interaction may be the reason for the rejection) and, while approaching a massive object (due to its gravity), their potential energy is transformed in kinetic energy, increasing their speed and subsequently the pressure of the DM gas.

Edited August 27, 2018 by DanMP

[Strange]

20 minutes ago, DanMP said:

What orbits? In order to rotate, a particle should have an angular momentum ... 

What does rotation have to do with it?

20 minutes ago, DanMP said:

For ordinary particles, a tiny initial angular momentum produced the rotations we know due to the fact that OM was able to collapse. It was not the case for DM.

Yes, ordinary matter is able to collapse because it self-interacts. Dark matter doesn't.

[DanMP]

29 minutes ago, Strange said:

What does rotation have to do with it?

An orbit implies rotation.

29 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes, ordinary matter is able to collapse because it self-interacts. Dark matter doesn't.

Yes, so DM cannot collapse, exactly as I said ... What is your point? Did you read the edited part below what you quoted here?

1 hour ago, Strange said:

And if the mathematics of your model are the same as GR, then your model will produce the same results as GR. Therefore you will not be able to distinguish it from GR. And therefore it will be rejected by the use of Occam's razor.

No, if the predictions I made using my model and simple reasoning are confirmed, then my model won't be rejected.

Edited August 27, 2018 by DanMP

[Strange]

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

An orbit implies rotation.

Why?

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

Yes, so DM cannot collapse, exactly as I said ...

So it won't concentrate significantly around mass such as planets.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, DanMP said:

I offered testable predictions. And I even tested, mathematically (using the math of GR, which is also the math of my theory), my first prediction (about the size of the Earth's darkmosphere). Follow the links I offered ...

From what I read there is no testable prediction. There could be, but you haven't followed through with the math, and some crucial details are missing.  Such as, is the "darkmosphere" rotating with the earth? Why or why not? If rotating, what are the characteristics of this rotation? 

[Strange]

Just to go back to one of the points in your original post: Time Dilation.

If we have two observers (A and B) in uniform motion relative to one another then A will see B's clock run slow and B will see A's clock run slow.

How is this possible if there is a "mechanical" explanation for time dilation? Either observer's clock can be considered stationary or in motion.

If we have 100 observers all moving at different speeds relative to A then they will all see A's clock running slower by different amounts. (And they will all see each others' clocks running slower than their own.) How can that be explained by a mechanical effect? 

[DanMP]

4 hours ago, Strange said:

Why?

It usually, if not always, does.

4 hours ago, Strange said:

So it won't concentrate significantly around mass such as planets.

It does concentrate around the center of the galaxy, so it can concentrate around any massive object, significantly enough.

 

4 hours ago, swansont said:

From what I read there is no testable prediction. There could be, but you haven't followed through with the math, and some crucial details are missing.

You are right, more math is needed and I realized today that I missed at least one important detail: at predictions 4 and (partially) 5, summer/winter and day/night differences may be smaller and/or different then "predicted", because the far side of the darkmosphere may be thicker, but the Sun's darkmosphere pressure is lower there, so it may compensate.

Still, the other predictions are ok, and deserve to be analyzed and tested.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

is the "darkmosphere" rotating with the earth? Why or why not? If rotating, what are the characteristics of this rotation? 

Yes. At the first prediction, where I calculated/estimated the size, I mentioned what a test particle would do near the border. Of course, a computer simulation would help ...

If you meant spin, no, because there are very few interactions. I discussed it recently, in relation with frame dragging / darkmosphere rotation.

4 hours ago, Strange said:

If we have two observers (A and B) in uniform motion relative to one another then A will see B's clock run slow and B will see A's clock run slow.

Yes, but they'll see each other's clock running slower because the information travels with limited speed. Instant comparisons, as when the plane is flying near the tower, both twins taking pictures, would reveal that the observers are agreeing about which clock is running slower.

[Strange]

32 minutes ago, DanMP said:

It does concentrate around the center of the galaxy, so it can concentrate around any massive object, significantly enough.

Physics (simulations) show this is not the case. So you need something better than just repeating your claims.

33 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Yes, but they'll see each other's clock running slower because the information travels with limited speed.

Why would the limited speed of communication cause this effect? Please demonstrate, mathematically, that this is the case. This implies that for over 100 years scientists and mathematicians have missed some obvious factor.

But, anyway, time dilation is what observers would measure after taking into account any effects like that. 

34 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Instant comparisons, as when the plane is flying near the tower, both twins taking pictures, would reveal that the observers are agreeing about which clock is running slower.

Nope. There is no point just making stuff up.

[beecee]

8 hours ago, DanMP said:

Why exactly?

For obvious reasons. The atmospheric layers of any star consists of the photosphere, chromosphere and the corona itself...plasma type matter where the existence of anything else is hard to imagine. When we speak of BH's the closest  orbit about any Schwarzchild BH is at 1.5 Schwarzchild radius and is known as the photon sphere. With the more realistic solution, the Kerr BH, there are two photon spheres, and surprisingly they orbit in opposite directions. Speaking of any DM darkmosphere closer then the photon sphere is crazy. 

Quote

So there isn't, and never was, very dense, rotating, ordinary matter anywhere near the BH?!?

The accretion disk is around 3 Schwarzchild radius, and matter, mostly plasma, then spirals in. 

Quote

or to make valid predictions using the new interpretation, while being in agreement with the existent theory results.

If your hypothetical makes anymore valid predictions then GR, then we'll be seeing you in Stockholm this year...That I doubt though as so far you have not explained suficiently clear enough time dilation, length contraction and of course gravitational radiation.

 

Quote

Not for DM.

Of course it is! Any gravitational lensing calculations would always make allowances for any Newtonian refraction and such is easily recognised by the fact that refraction is chromatic and  Gravitational lensing is achromatic. 

 

Quote

Read my comment again, while keeping in mind that the halo around galaxies is a DM halo ...

The halo of DM around galaxies is not in question. And certainly adds nothing to your claims about atmospheric like gathering of DM around BH's or stars, at least within certain ranges. DM density certainly increases towards the galactic center as evidenced, but in no way analogous to an atmosphere.

 

 

[DanMP]

38 minutes ago, Strange said:

Physics (simulations) show this is not the case.

For cold DM? Why not? Can you provide a link?

46 minutes ago, Strange said:

But, anyway, time dilation is what observers would measure after taking into account any effects like that. 

True, but those effects are affecting what they would see.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter how the observers are seeing each other's clock. What matters is that all observers are agreeing about the differences recorded and displayed by the tower-airplane twins clocks when they are meeting (and taking pictures).

I hope you agree with the 2 facts derived from H-K experiments I mentioned, because those facts were demonstrated by my theory, and that is what we have to explain, the facts.

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, DanMP said:

For cold DM? Why not? Can you provide a link?

It is hard to provide something this specific. You really need to study the subject properly. Here are a couple of relevant papers. There are probably better ones ...

https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2334

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...490..493N

17 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Anyway, it doesn't really matter how the observers are seeing each other's clock. What matters is that all observers are agreeing about the differences recorded and displayed by the tower-airplane twins clocks when they are meeting (and taking pictures).

But that is NOT the example I am talking about. You may be able to fudge an answer in that specific case (but as you are unable to do any calculations, we can just ignore your claims anyway).

In the case of two observers in inertial frames of reference, a mechanistic explanation does not (and can not) fit the fact that both observers see the other clock running slower than their own (after allowing for signal propagation delays, Doppler effects, etc). 

[DanMP]

8 hours ago, Strange said:

Here are a couple of relevant papers. There are probably better ones ...

Thank you!

In the first one I found:

Quote

We derive the density profile for collisionless dissipationless dark matter haloes in hierarchical cosmologies making use of the Secondary Infall (SI) model. The novelties are: i) we deal with triaxial virialised objects; ii) their seeds in the linear regime are peaks endowed with {\it unconvolved} spherically averaged density profiles according to the peak formalism; iii) the initial peculiar velocities are taken into account; and iv) accreting haloes are assumed to develop from the inside out, keeping the instantaneous inner system unaltered. The validity of this latter assumption is accurately checked by comparing analytical predictions on such a growth with the results of numerical simulation. We show that the spherically averaged density profile of virialised objects can be inferred with no need to specify their shape. 

My comments:

1. Why collisionless? Weak interaction would allow DM particles to collide. Or they would pass through each other?

2. They say "accreting haloes are assumed to develop from the inside out" but I couldn't find that this is valid just for galaxies and not for any massive object.

From the second link:

Quote

We use high-resolution N-body simulations to study the equilibrium density profiles of dark matter halos in hierarchically clustering universes. We find that all such profiles have the same shape, independent of the halo mass, the initial density fluctuation spectrum, and the values of the cosmological parameters. Spherically averaged equilibrium profiles are well fitted over two decades in radius by a simple formula originally proposed to describe the structure of galaxy clusters in a cold dark matter universe. In any particular cosmology, the two scale parameters of the fit, the halo mass and its characteristic density, are strongly correlated. Low-mass halos are significantly denser than more massive systems, a correlation that reflects the higher collapse redshift of small halos. The characteristic density of an equilibrium halo is proportional to the density of the universe at the time it was assembled. A suitable definition of this assembly time allows the same proportionality constant to be used for all the cosmologies that we have tested. We compare our results with previous work on halo density profiles and show that there is good agreement. We also provide a step-by-step analytic procedure, based on the Press-Schechter formalism, that allows accurate equilibrium profiles to be calculated as a function of mass in any hierarchical model.

Again, it doesn't say or imply (on the contrary) that what is valid for galaxies is not valid for any massive object.

So, it seems that I was right. Thank you again for the links.

 

8 hours ago, Strange said:

In the case of two observers in inertial frames of reference, a mechanistic explanation does not (and can not) fit the fact that both observers see the other clock running slower than their own (after allowing for signal propagation delays, Doppler effects, etc). 

I admit that I can't explain this. It is derived from the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum, so it is in agreement with my "theory".

On the other hand I have to reiterate that my "mechanistic" explanation is aimed to explain the facts we learned from experiments. And from Hafele-Keating experiments we learned:

Quote

Kinematic time dilation[edit]

According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly, as expressed by the Lorentz factor. This effect, called time dilation, has been confirmed in many tests of special relativity, such as the Ives–Stilwell experiment and experimental testing of time dilation.[1] Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, a clock aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, had a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than one that remained on the ground, while a clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's rotation, had a lower velocity than one on the ground.[2]

Gravitational time dilation[edit]

Main article: Gravitational time dilation

General relativity predicts an additional effect, in which an increase in gravitational potential due to altitude speeds the clocks up. That is, clocks at higher altitude tick faster than clocks on Earth's surface. This effect has been confirmed in many tests of general relativity, such as the Pound–Rebka experiment and Gravity Probe A. In the Hafele–Keating experiment, there was a slight increase in gravitational potential due to altitude that tended to speed the clocks back up. Since the aircraft flew at roughly the same altitude in both directions, this effect was approximately the same for the two planes, but nevertheless it caused a difference in comparison to the clocks on the ground.[2]

So, I was dealing with the facts. If you know any experiment regarding kinematic time dilation where the rate of a clock was not greatest, at the same altitude, in the non-rotating frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the Earth (or the closest massive object), please point to it.

Edited August 28, 2018 by DanMP