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

[Strange]

46 minutes ago, DanMP said:

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

Collisionless (and dissipationaless) because they don't interact. The weak interaction only allows specific types of particles to interact in specific ways such as beta decay. Neutrinos, for example, do not interact with one another at all. They don't exactly pass through each other (remember, fundamental particles are zero size: they may have a non-zero interaction cross-section, but only if they interact) but they do pass each other without having any effect.

I will try and get back to the others later.

[Strange]

On 23/08/2018 at 5:46 PM, DanMP said:

The reason for the speed of light in vacuum being a constant

I assume you mean "invariant" rather than "constant". (These are very different things. A constant speed of light doesn't really need an explanation.)

It seems you are explaining the invariance of the speed of light as a consequence of the "mechanical" changes in lengths and time.

On 23/08/2018 at 5:46 PM, DanMP said:

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).

What about looking at how the second is actually defined. There is no movement involved and it would seem quite a stretch to suggest a mechanical explanation effecting it.

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

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.

So you are picking the evidence you can provide a mechanical explanation for and ignoring the awkward facts that you can't explain.

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

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.

Not the case I was talking about.

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

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.

Because the haloes formed over millions of years at the same time as the normal matter condensed to form galaxies. There is no mechanism to slow dark matter enough to form small scale structures. (Collisionless and dissipationaless, remember.)

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

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

I guess they didn't feel the need to state something that would be understood by anyone familiar with the subject.

 

[swansont]

13 hours ago, DanMP said:

I 

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.

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.

I meant rotation, not spin. As in, what is the period of rotation about the earth? Is it 24 hours? Any variation in period with latitude?

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

contrived

Typified by the "it does interact with light but magically it does it in such a way that it is undetectable so it looks like it doesn't"

[DanMP]

21 hours ago, Strange said:

On 8/23/2018 at 7:46 PM, DanMP said:

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).

What about looking at how the second is actually defined. There is no movement involved and it would seem quite a stretch to suggest a mechanical explanation effecting it.

It was wrong what I wrote above? Why/how?

It is a stretch, yes, that's why I didn't try. Still, when the atom "slows down" or "speeds up", its energy levels would/should suffer some modifications, altering also the differences between them (they would decrease/increase). So, that oscillation is altered, not as reliable as we think it is ...

 

22 hours ago, Strange said:

On 8/28/2018 at 9:56 AM, DanMP said:

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.

So you are picking the evidence you can provide a mechanical explanation for and ignoring the awkward facts that you can't explain.

This is not a fact. The fact is the end result of/for the round trip, and the end result is the same. You/we can use the time dilation formula derived from Lorentz transformations + the awkward frame change:

as you can see here, but I prefer my explanation. It makes more sense. It also explains how time dilation is affecting the body ...

Again, please point to an experimental fact related with time dilation, in disagreement with my explanations/claims.

 

22 hours ago, Strange said:

On 8/28/2018 at 9:56 AM, DanMP said:

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

I guess they didn't feel the need to state something that would be understood by anyone familiar with the subject.

I need more than a guess.

22 hours ago, swansont said:

I meant rotation, not spin. As in, what is the period of rotation about the earth? Is it 24 hours? Any variation in period with latitude?

I considered it as the spin, the rotation being around the Sun, together with the Earth.

So this rotation is almost null, as the frame dragging is. Why? As I explained, there are very few interactions with ordinary matter particles, as for neutrino. An analogy: you cannot create much draft with a volleyball net.

12 hours ago, Strange said:

Typified by the "it does interact with light but magically it does it in such a way that it is undetectable so it looks like it doesn't"

Not magically. The conservation laws I mentioned are not magic. DM particles cannot absorb photons. Follow the links I gave.

On 8/28/2018 at 12:07 AM, beecee said:

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. 

So what is your point? The drag may occur in the BH's darkmosphere far outside the BH. In fact, most of the drag would be from other massive objects darkmospheres rotating around the BH.

 

On 8/28/2018 at 12:07 AM, beecee said:

 

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. 

Read again. I said that the refraction in DM atmosphere is the reason for gravitational lensing.

[Strange]

56 minutes ago, DanMP said:

It was wrong what I wrote above? Why/how?

That is not how the second is defined or measured. Far too variable. 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

as you can see here, but I prefer my explanation. It makes more sense. It also explains how time dilation is affecting the body ...

Again, please point to an experimental fact related with time dilation, in disagreement with my explanations/claims.

Time dilation is caused and primarily a result of the finite speed of light and gravity. This has been shown conclusively and amply illustrated in the twin experiment and the out going and returning world line paths through spacetime. All this so far you seem to reject, even spacetime.

Quote

I need more than a guess.

That seems rather ironic considering the guesses and contrivance you have put forward supporting your hypothesis.

Quote

I considered it as the spin, the rotation being around the Sun, together with the Earth.

A spin about a body's axis is scientifically termed rotation, while the path of a body about another body is scientifically called an orbit.

Quote

 

So what is your point? The drag may occur in the BH's darkmosphere far outside the BH. In fact, most of the drag would be from other massive objects darkmospheres rotating around the BH.

 

My point is as you now seem to have recognised, is that DM would create nothing anywhere dense enough to be called an atmosphere or even a darkmosphere. That is simply a contrived myth on your part. 

 

Quote

Read again. I said that the refraction in DM atmosphere is the reason for gravitational lensing

Gravitational lensing as caused by intervening galaxies, dense stellar remnants like BHs or DM, have two components that can be amply recognised by their chromatic and achromatic reactions. The small percentage of Newtonian  refraction is chromatic, and by far the greater percenatge is gravitational lensing which is achromatic.

 

[swansont]

4 hours ago, DanMP said:

I considered it as the spin, the rotation being around the Sun, together with the Earth.

 

Quote

So this rotation is almost null, as the frame dragging is. Why? As I explained, there are very few interactions with ordinary matter particles, as for neutrino. An analogy: you cannot create much draft with a volleyball net.

So why would it be rotating around the sun, but not the earth?  Why is that? Sounds like we should just be moving through it.

Quote

Not magically. The conservation laws I mentioned are not magic. DM particles cannot absorb photons. Follow the links I gave.

But you said they absorb photons, and then re-emit them

"these very small dark matter particles are able to “absorb” and very quickly re-emit light/photons"

 

[DanMP]

 

On 8/29/2018 at 11:37 AM, Strange said:

On 8/29/2018 at 10:39 AM, DanMP said:

It was wrong what I wrote above? Why/how?

That is not how the second is defined or measured. Far too variable. 

You didn't reply to my question. What was wrong in my bolded/underlined statement? What is "far too variable"? The atom/molecule? If so, why that energy difference we use to define the second would be not/less variable?

 

By the way, I'm still waiting for your reply to:

On 8/28/2018 at 9:56 AM, DanMP said:

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.

and

On 8/29/2018 at 10:39 AM, DanMP said:

Again, please point to an experimental fact related with time dilation, in disagreement with my explanations/claims.

On 8/29/2018 at 12:46 PM, beecee said:

My point is as you now seem to have recognised, is that DM would create nothing anywhere dense enough to be called an atmosphere or even a darkmosphere. That is simply a contrived myth on your part. 

I didn't recognize what you claim. On the contrary, dark matter atmosphere is the "backbone" of my model. And it is very dense in number of particles per cubic meter, not in kg/m³. Mass density of DM is very low, as "observed".

It seems that you don't understand a lot of things (maybe because my wording is/was not very good and/or you didn't pay enough attention). As an example, i wrote:

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.

You replied:

Sure, so?

I wrote:

So, refraction is a good explanation.

You:

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

Me:

Not for DM.

You:

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. 

Me:

Read again. I said that the refraction in DM atmosphere is the reason for gravitational lensing.

You:

Gravitational lensing as caused by intervening galaxies, dense stellar remnants like BHs or DM, have two components that can be amply recognised by their chromatic and achromatic reactions. The small percentage of Newtonian  refraction is chromatic, and by far the greater percenatge is gravitational lensing which is achromatic.

 

That's why you said:

With regards to the OP proposals, I now after 4 pages change my summing up from superfluous, to contrived.

Edited August 31, 2018 by DanMP

[DanMP]

On 8/29/2018 at 2:51 PM, swansont said:

So why would it be rotating around the sun, but not the earth?  Why is that? Sounds like we should just be moving through it.

The darkmosphere is rotating around the Sun with the planet, as air atmosphere does, due to gravity. This is a fact observed for Bullet Cluster.

About the rotation around the Earth:

On 8/29/2018 at 10:39 AM, DanMP said:

this rotation is almost null, as the frame dragging is. Why? As I explained, there are very few interactions with ordinary matter particles, as for neutrino. An analogy: you cannot create much draft with a volleyball net.

 

On 8/29/2018 at 2:51 PM, swansont said:

But you said they absorb photons, and then re-emit them

"these very small dark matter particles are able to “absorb” and very quickly re-emit light/photons"

I wrote "absorb" and not absorb for a reason, and the reason is very nice explained in my Fizeau-Sagnac thread. Search quasi-absorption.

I recommend you all to read it for a better understanding on how light travels through matter (both ordinary and dark).

[Strange]

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

You didn't reply to my question. What was wrong in my bolded/underlined statement?

Nothing, in principle. Apart from the fact it would not make a useful way of defining seconds or metres.

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

What is "far too variable"?

The frequency of oscillation of bonds in a molecule. It will depend on various external factors.

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

If so, why that energy difference we use to define the second would be not/less variable?

swansont is probably better placed to answer that (as he deals with this stuff every day) but basically because it depends on fundamental quantum properties that are not significantly affected by external conditions. (Or it is easier to keep those external variables under control.)

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

By the way, I'm still waiting for your reply to:

On 28/08/2018 at 7:56 AM, DanMP said:

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.

There is a fundamental asymmetry there which could, perhaps, be explained mechanistically. (Although I doubt it can - and this seems to be confirmed by the fact that you [and everyone else with similar ideas] cannot produce a model.) 

Which is why I didn't bring this up as an objection.

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

Again, please point to an experimental fact related with time dilation, in disagreement with my explanations/claims.

Time dilation is symmetrical (two observers in relative motion both see the other's clock running slowly). This is a based on Galilean  relativity. The exact amount of time dilation is predicted by relativity. Both of these have been tested to extremely high levels of accuracy.

You say that your idea uses the same math as relativity. Therefore, you must also predict the same symmetrical time dilation. This cannot be explained mechanistically because you cannot say that A is moving relative to the "dark matter" and B is stationary, while at the same time B is moving relative to the "dark matter" and A is stationary.

 

[swansont]

48 minutes ago, DanMP said:

The darkmosphere is rotating around the Sun with the planet, as air atmosphere does, due to gravity. This is a fact observed for Bullet Cluster.

But why would it rotate about the sun, and not about the earth?  

The evidence is not about rotation about a star vs a planet.

Quote

 I wrote "absorb" and not absorb for a reason, and the reason is very nice explained in my Fizeau-Sagnac thread. Search quasi-absorption.

Speculations threads are supposed to be self-contained, and advertising other speculations threads is not allowed.

Why would photons interact at all with dark matter?

Quote

I recommend you all to read it for a better understanding on how light travels through matter (both ordinary and dark).

"better understanding" implies your conjecture is correct, and we are very, very far from that. 

On 8/23/2018 at 12:46 PM, DanMP said:

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.]

Since the "darkmosphere" is rotating with the sun but not the earth, clocks should vary in their tick rate over the course of a day. At noon and midnight there is a maximum difference between the net speed, as the rotation of the earth is directed with or against the orbit. At a 6-hour offset from those times, the velocities are perpendicular.

On 8/23/2018 at 12:46 PM, DanMP said:

 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).

"We seem to consider atoms and molecules very reliable" is a statement that is so general that it is wrong. We consider certain properties to be very reliable, but that does not mean that all properties are. And even if you find some desirable property, there's the problem of actually doing the measurement. How precisely could you determine a scissoring vibration? (i.e. how does it vary as its environment — e.g. temperature, E and B fields, etc. — changes?) How would you measure it?

Cs-133 wasn't picked at random to be the standard for the second. We use hydrogen masers as clocks, but not ammonia masers. Again, for good reasons. We are still in the process of figuring out what the best atom or ion to use in an optical frequency standard, but but there are few candidates compared to the number of atoms and molecules we could possibly use.

 

[DanMP]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

...What was wrong in my bolded/underlined statement?

Nothing, in principle. Apart from the fact it would not make a useful way of defining seconds or metres.

Yes, it "would not make a useful way of defining seconds or metres" for everyday life, but it is useful if you want to prove something, like I did.

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

The frequency of oscillation of bonds in a molecule. It will depend on various external factors.

What external factors? 

 

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is a fundamental asymmetry there which could, perhaps, be explained mechanistically. (Although I doubt it can - and this seems to be confirmed by the fact that you [and everyone else with similar ideas] cannot produce a model.) 

I did produce a model.

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

You say that your idea uses the same math as relativity. Therefore, you must also predict the same symmetrical time dilation. This cannot be explained mechanistically because you cannot say that A is moving relative to the "dark matter" and B is stationary, while at the same time B is moving relative to the "dark matter" and A is stationary.

It "happens" that in real life we always use the non-rotating frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the Earth (or the biggest massive object around). This is because that frame is closest to an inertial frame and it is also the best if we need to consider gravitational time dilation. So, the frame where the darkmosphere is at rest is always the preferred frame ... That's why my "mechanistic" explanation works.

Regarding the mathematics, in my model/theory the speed of light in vacuum is also invariant, so Lorentz transformations are valid.

As swansont said, a new theory "needs to agree with the experiment", so I don't need to explain the old theory and how exactly is reaching a result, as long as my result is consistent with the reality, and it is.

Again, quit hand-waving and point to an experimental fact related with time dilation, in disagreement with my explanations/claims. If you don't know any, just state it.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, DanMP said:

I did produce a model.

Show us the mathematics, then. (That is what a model is.) Please show how the mathematical model is derived from your concept of dark matter, don't just make assertions about it.

6 minutes ago, DanMP said:

It "happens" that in real life we always use the non-rotating frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the Earth (or the biggest massive object around). This is because that frame is closest to an inertial frame and it is also the best if we need to consider gravitational time dilation. So, the frame where the darkmosphere is at rest is always the preferred frame ... That's why my "mechanistic" explanation works.

Apart from the fact that you haven't answered swansont's questions about how this is possible in the first place, it doesn't address my objection.

This "static background" would imply that we could tell that one person is stationary and the other is moving. Therefore time dilation would not be symmetrical. This is not what theory predicts or what experiment confirms.

It is also contradicted by your claim that:

8 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Regarding the mathematics, in my model/theory the speed of light in vacuum is also invariant, so Lorentz transformations are valid.

So, on the one hand you claim a (locally) static dark-matter/aether which would violate Lorentz invariance (which has been tested to ridiculous levels of accuracy) but on the other you claim the Lorentz transformations are valid.

You can't have both.

12 minutes ago, DanMP said:

As swansont said, a new theory "needs to agree with the experiment", so I don't need to explain the old theory and how exactly is reaching a result, as long as my result is consistent with the reality, and it is.

No one is asking you to explain or justify the "old" (working) theory but to justify your own idea. For this, you need to use the mathematics derived from your concept of dark matter and compare the predictions with experiment.

If you can't do that, you are not doing science.

13 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Again, quit hand-waving and point to an experimental fact related with time dilation, in disagreement with my explanations/claims. If you don't know any, just state it.

Oh, FFS. An accusation of hand-waving from you is beyond ironic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

http://www.aei.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/RT/srtest.html

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=experimental+tests+of+special+relativity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0502097

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=experimental+tests+of+lorentz+invariance

 

[swansont]

47 minutes ago, DanMP said:

 What external factors? 

 

Temperature, for one. Which would likely be a very large effect.

 

On 8/23/2018 at 12:46 PM, DanMP said:

 

 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).

What is the radial variation of the density of these particles? (derived form your model, of course. Not ad-hoc)

Quote

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.

This implies that the effect should vary linearly with speed. Why doesn't it? How do you derive the Lorentz formula for the change in frequency from your hypothesis?

 

 

[DanMP]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

But why would it rotate about the sun, and not about the earth?  

The evidence is not about rotation about a star vs a planet.

I really don't get your point. I explained why a planet (it may be alo a star or any massive object) rotation about its axis does not create a significant rotation of its darkmosphere: the drag is extremely small (see the volleyball net analogy), while a planet can carry its darkmosphere around the star due to gravity. I wrote:

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.

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Speculations threads are supposed to be self-contained, and advertising other speculations threads is not allowed.

So you want me to copy/paste it here?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Why would photons interact at all with dark matter?

What you suggest, the photon should zigzag between the huge number of DM particles in its path? How?

You see, Nature is not a computer program. Particles are not instructed what do do by a software, reacting instantly. So, absorption is a trial and error process (as I demonstrated using Fizeau & Sagnac experimental results + math). Due to conservation of both momentum and energy, DM particles are always and promptly re-emitting the photons as they were, so it seems that there is no interaction at all.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Since the "darkmosphere" is rotating with the sun but not the earth, clocks should ...

What "darkmosphere" is rotating with the sun?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

clocks should vary in their tick rate over the course of a day. At noon and midnight there is a maximum difference between the net speed, as the rotation of the earth is directed with or against the orbit.

We are (almost) static in Earth's darkmosphere, so the orbital speed around the Sun does not influence us on Earth. If you didn't get this from my first post (the second prediction), I'm wasting my time ...

2 hours ago, swansont said:

"We seem to consider atoms and molecules very reliable" is a statement that is so general that it is wrong. We consider certain properties to be very reliable, but that does not mean that all properties are. And even if you find some desirable property, there's the problem of actually doing the measurement. How precisely could you determine a scissoring vibration? (i.e. how does it vary as its environment — e.g. temperature, E and B fields, etc. — changes?) How would you measure it?

It was not a definition for practical use. It was use to prove a point.

Atom vibrations in molecules don't change continuously. There are energy levels. When I said:

...   a certain, reliable cycle, like a scissoring vibration

I meant that that particular vibration remains at the same level. It is so hard to maintain constant temperature and block any incoming radiation? Again, this definition is not for practical purposes.

 

[swansont]

24 minutes ago, DanMP said:

I really don't get your point. I explained why a planet (it may be alo a star or any massive object) rotation about its axis does not create a significant rotation of its darkmosphere: the drag is extremely small (see the volleyball net analogy), while a planet can carry its darkmosphere around the star due to gravity. I wrote:

Gravity is radial. It does not drag things in orbit. But by your logic, there should be a darkmosphere orbiting the earth, much like the moon. And that orbital velocity should vary with radius, but you've made no mention of this. How would this vary with latitude, I wonder? For dark matter not in the equatorial plane?

 

Quote

So you want me to copy/paste it here?

Do what you need to do to support your idea, within the rules.

Quote

What you suggest, the photon should zigzag between the huge number of DM particles in its path? How?

Why would they have to? If they don't interact, they can just pass through. Neutrinos do this all the time.

Quote

What "darkmosphere" is rotating with the sun?

You tell me. That's what you had preciously claimed. 

"the rotation being around the Sun, together with the Earth."

How else could the particles be at rest (on average) with respect to the earth?

Quote

We are (almost) static in Earth's darkmosphere, so the orbital speed around the Sun does not influence us on Earth. If you didn't get this from my first post (the second prediction), I'm wasting my time ...

And right here you say it again. The darkmosphere must be moving about the sun, according to you.

But I wonder why it would be constrained to being in the plane of the ecliptic.

Quote

It was not a definition for practical use. It was use to prove a point.

Atom vibrations in molecules don't change continuously. There are energy levels. When I said:

But they do change continually.

Quote

I meant that that particular vibration remains at the same level. It is so hard to maintain constant temperature and block any incoming radiation? Again, this definition is not for practical purposes.

Well, that's just it. You did not investigate the matter at all, to see how well one must stabilize the temperature to maintain a constant vibration. And molecules bump into each other all the time, changing their vibrational state. Even if temperature were perfectly maintained, you would have a range of vibrational modes in any sample. 

[DanMP]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Show us the mathematics, then. (That is what a model is.) Please show how the mathematical model is derived from your concept of dark matter, don't just make assertions about it.

I wrote:

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.

If you know a way, please explain.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

This "static background" would imply that we could tell that one person is stationary and the other is moving. Therefore time dilation would not be symmetrical. This is not what theory predicts or what experiment confirms.

We can tell, using nothing but atomic clocks, that GPS satellites are moving, while someone at a pole is stationary. Time dilation experiments are confirming it.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

So, on the one hand you claim a (locally) static dark-matter/aether which would violate Lorentz invariance (which has been tested to ridiculous levels of accuracy) but on the other you claim the Lorentz transformations are valid.

You can't have both.

We can have both if we realize that our measuring tools (atomic clocks, meter sticks) are also influenced, as I explained.

I'm still waiting for the answer you're avoiding. The links you gave are not what I asked. I already explained, including in this post, why my math and results are the same with the current relativity math and results.

[Strange]

34 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Due to conservation of both momentum and energy, DM particles are always and promptly re-emitting the photons as they were, so it seems that there is no interaction at all.

Why doesn’t this happen with any other particles? In all other cases photons end up with pretty much random directions after interaction (and energy and momentum are still conserved). 

4 minutes ago, DanMP said:

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.

But it isn't the same thing. It is nothing like the same thing.

GR describes the effects you are talking about in terms of the curvature of 4D geometry; that is what the mathematics describes.

Please explain how the interaction of atoms with a gas of dark matter particles can be described in terms of 4D pseudo-Riemannian manifolds. It can't. It is a ludicrous claim.

7 minutes ago, DanMP said:

We can tell, using nothing but atomic clocks, that GPS satellites are moving, while someone at a pole is stationary. Time dilation experiments are confirming it

Nonsense. We can tell that GPS satellites are at a different gravitational potential (or, equivalently, are accelerating in orbit). If you just consider relative velocity, you cannot determine which is moving.

Plus, there have been hundreds, possibly thousands, of experiments to test for this sort of Lorentz violation. None is detectable. That is a "fact" that you need to accept.

9 minutes ago, DanMP said:

We can have both if we realize that our measuring tools (atomic clocks, meter sticks) are also influenced, as I explained.

If this is so, please show the mathematical proof.

10 minutes ago, DanMP said:

I'm still waiting for the answer you're avoiding. The links you gave are not what I asked. I already explained, including in this post, why my math and results are the same with the current relativity math and results.

I am not avoiding anything. I have provided you with links to many experiments that support SR and therefore refute your claim that we can determine absolute motion.

You haven't explained how a the interaction between atoms and particles can be described in terms of 4D geometry. 

And what math?

 

[DanMP]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

Gravity is radial. It does not drag things in orbit.

Bulet Cluster drags its darkmosphere/halo on its orbit/trajectory ...

... by your logic, there should be a darkmosphere orbiting the earth, much like the moon.

With the moon yes, like the moon no.

I wrote about angular momentum and why dark matter particles don't have it like ordinary matter.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

they can just pass through. Neutrinos do this all the time.

How do you/we know this? Please provide a link to an experimental proof.

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Quote

What "darkmosphere" is rotating with the sun?

You tell me. That's what you had preciously claimed. 

"the rotation being around the Sun, together with the Earth."

How else could the particles be at rest (on average) with respect to the earth?

Earth's darkmosphere is attached to Earth (somehow similar with Bullet Cluster halo to Bulet Cluster), so it is moving "around the Sun together with the Earth".

The Sun's darkmosphere is static in the non-rotating frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the Sun.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You did not investigate the matter at all, to see how well one must stabilize the temperature to maintain a constant vibration. And molecules bump into each other all the time, changing their vibrational state. Even if temperature were perfectly maintained, you would have a range of vibrational modes in any sample. 

So consider one molecule alone in a big enough enclosure to ensure that it'll not bump in anything. Also, the enclosure must block any incoming radiation. Again, this is not for practical purposes. It is just in order to see why the speed of light in vacuum is invariant, 

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.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

 We can tell, using nothing but atomic clocks, that GPS satellites are moving, while someone at a pole is stationary. Time dilation experiments are confirming it.

Only because one is not in an inertial frame of reference. 

 

17 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Bulet Cluster drags its darkmosphere/halo on its orbit/trajectory ...

We know that this is dragging? How was this deduced? 

Quote

With the moon yes, like the moon no.

I wrote about angular momentum and why dark matter particles don't have it like ordinary matter.

Yes, you said "DM is rotating far less than ordinary matter"

So why does it orbit the sun? if it didn't have angular momentum it would tend to fall into the sun. (Here is but one reason why models are superior to "wrote about" aka handwaving)

 

Quote

How do you/we know this? Please provide a link to an experimental proof.

You didn't seem to have a problem with Strange's mention of neutrinos. You even agreed with the notion that they were hard to detect. But now you need a link to experimental proof?

http://inspirehep.net/record/1236362/plots?ln=en

There's a graph of neutron cross-sections vs energy for C-12 and a citation for the experiment, for both electron and muon neutrinos. Small cross section = rarely interacts.

(and many more results if you Google it)

Quote

Earth's darkmosphere is attached to Earth (somehow similar with Bullet Cluster halo to Bulet Cluster), so it is moving "around the Sun together with the Earth".

The Sun's darkmosphere is static in the non-rotating frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the Sun.

But why would the behavior around the sun not be replicated in motion around the earth? It's just gravity, right? Orbital behavior?

It's hard to accept that it follow one example of orbital behavior, but not another, while you point to orbital behavior as your "proof"

Quote

So consider one molecule alone in a big enough enclosure to ensure that it'll not bump in anything. Also, the enclosure must block any incoming radiation. Again, this is not for practical purposes. It is just in order to see why the speed of light in vacuum is invariant, 

You can't block all radiation. Blackbody radiation always exists. You also can't completely evacuate a chamber.

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Bulet Cluster drags its darkmosphere/halo on its orbit/trajectory ...

I was going to comment on this before. Now you have brought it up again, you seem to totally misunderstand what is happening.

In the Bullet Cluster we see the dark matter separating from the matter. After a collision, the matter interacted and slowed. The dark matter kept going as if nothing had happened.

 

[DanMP]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Why doesn’t this happen with any other particles?

It does happen. One particle alone cannot absorb a photon. See here why.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

But it isn't the same thing. It is nothing like the same thing.

GR describes the effects you are talking about in terms of the curvature of 4D geometry; that is what the mathematics describes.

If in the "equation":   x = y + a + 1  ,

a is postulated as being 2 or derived/explained as being 2 (from 1+1), the equation is, in both instances:   x = y + 3  (I hope you agree).

How it could be different?

Of course, the GR math is much more complicated, and it involves geometry, but still, if this is the only change (and it is, mathematically speaking) the math and the results are the same.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Nonsense. We can tell that GPS satellites are at a different gravitational potential (or, equivalently, are accelerating in orbit). If you just consider relative velocity, you cannot determine which is moving.

Plus, there have been hundreds, possibly thousands, of experiments to test for this sort of Lorentz violation. None is detectable. That is a "fact" that you need to accept.

There is no Lorentz violation. 

Ignore gravitational potential/time dilation, by considering the satellite as flying at the same level with the clock at the pole. The clock on the satelite would fall behind the clock on the ground, as we know from H-K exp., so we can tell which clock was moving.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

We can have both if we realize that our measuring tools (atomic clocks, meter sticks) are also influenced, as I explained.

If this is so, please show the mathematical proof.

I did.

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

I am not avoiding anything.

You do.

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

You haven't explained how a the interaction between atoms and particles can be described in terms of 4D geometry. 

Why should I?

 

I entered the forum today, mainly to say that a simulation (regarding the DM density around a galaxy) is not an absolute proof. It is just an indication. There are probably dozens of competing simulations, with different input parameters, all more or less consistent with what we observe (as there are more, competing, Big-Bang theories). There is always possible to make yet another simulation with good results.

Another indication, for me, is how the distribution of DM should be, in order to be consistent with observations ... and it seems to fit my model.

By the way, it is possible that the simulations are meant for galaxies just because we only have enough observational proofs for galaxies (inferred from star rotations) ... and not because a similar distribution is not possible around any other massive object ...

 

On 8/28/2018 at 12:09 PM, Strange said:

On 8/28/2018 at 9:56 AM, DanMP said:

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.

Because the haloes formed over millions of years at the same time as the normal matter condensed to form galaxies. There is no mechanism to slow dark matter enough to form small scale structures. (Collisionless and dissipationaless, remember.)

So younger galaxies are not having the same or similar DM distribution as the older ones?

 

For me it's enough to have increasing DM densities from outside towards the gravity center. I don't know if collisions are important or not to my model.

On the other hand, DM particles are having mass, so if they have no volume (point-like), they would have infinite density ... This is nonsense. So they probably have volume and collide.

[Strange]

19 minutes ago, DanMP said:

It does happen. One particle alone cannot absorb a photon. See here why.

Christ. You do make this hard work.

When an atom absorbs a photon and later re-emits it, the photon is emitted in a (largely) random direction. What doesn't happen is the photon emitted unchanged so the atom is invisible. The same is true when a photon interacts with a single photon. You have invented a magic process that only applies to your dark matter particles.

21 minutes ago, DanMP said:

If in the "equation":   x = y + a + 1  ,

a is postulated as being 2 or derived/explained as being 2 (from 1+1), the equation is, in both instances:   x = y + 3  (I hope you agree).

I fail to see the relevance of that.

You are trying to say that the stress-energy tensor and the Ricci curvature tensor describe the interaction of particles when there are no properties of those particles in the equations.

It is like saying that that the equation of a sphere can describe the weather. It is nonsense.

22 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Of course, the GR math is much more complicated, and it involves geometry, but still, if this is the only change (and it is, mathematically speaking) the math and the results are the same.

Then you need to prove this. 

When you say "if this is the only change" what is "this"? The change from a 4D manifold to a gas of particles? Do you really think you can describe the flow of a fluid and the interaction with other particles using a purely geometrical description? I don't. So it is up to you to prove it. Mathematically.

27 minutes ago, DanMP said:

There is no Lorentz violation. 

There is in your concept.

28 minutes ago, DanMP said:

I did.

There is no mathematics in this thread, as far as I can see. Certainly not a proof of the equivalence of 4D geometry and particle-particle interactions.

26 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Why should I?

Because otherwise there is no reason anyone should believe your claim that it can.

29 minutes ago, DanMP said:

I entered the forum today, mainly to say that a simulation (regarding the DM density around a galaxy) is not an absolute proof.

No one claimed it was. There are no "absolute proofs" in science. 

But the pseudoscientists claim of "you can simulate anything to get any results" is just nonsense. And irrelevant when you don't even have a model you can simulate.

31 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Another indication, for me, is how the distribution of DM should be, in order to be consistent with observations ... and it seems to fit my model.

As you claim that increasing density of dark matter should cause greater effects of time dilation, etc. Why don't we see anomalous effects nearer the centre of the galaxy.

32 minutes ago, DanMP said:

By the way, it is possible that the simulations are meant for galaxies just because we only have enough observational proofs for galaxies (inferred from star rotations) ... and not because a similar distribution is not possible around any other massive object ...

Yep. Keep making up excuses.

32 minutes ago, DanMP said:

So younger galaxies are not having the same or similar DM distribution as the older ones?

Probably similar as they formed at the same time. (From what I have read, the dark matter seeded the formation of galaxies, etc)

33 minutes ago, DanMP said:

On the other hand, DM particles are having mass, so if they have no volume (point-like), they would have infinite density ... This is nonsense. So they probably have volume and collide.

All fundamental particles have zero size and some have mass.

[DanMP]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

I was going to comment on this before. Now you have brought it up again, you seem to totally misunderstand what is happening.

In the Bullet Cluster we see the dark matter separating from the matter. After a collision, the matter interacted and slowed. The dark matter kept going as if nothing had happened.

You did, as you can see in Wikipedia:

Quote

The major components of the cluster pair—stars, gas and the putative dark matter—behave differently during collision, allowing them to be studied separately. The stars of the galaxies, observable in visible light, were not greatly affected by the collision, and most passed right through, gravitationally slowed but not otherwise altered. The hot gas of the two colliding components, seen in X-rays, represents most of the baryonic, i.e. ordinary, matter in the cluster pair. The gases interact electromagnetically, causing the gases of both clusters to slow much more than the stars. The third component, the dark matter, was detected indirectly by the gravitational lensing of background objects. In theories without dark matter, such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), the lensing would be expected to follow the baryonic matter; i.e. the X-ray gas. However, the lensing is strongest in two separated regions near (possibly coincident with) the visible galaxies. This provides support for the idea that most of the mass in the cluster pair is in the form of two regions of dark matter, which bypassed the gas regions during the collision. This accords with predictions of dark matter as only weakly interacting, other than via the gravitational force.

Two in one strike

1. DM traveled with the stars of the galaxies, being near (possibly coincident with) the visible galaxies. In my model DM atmospheres travel with massive objects (stars, planets) ...

2. DM particles are weakly interacting.