Jump to content

Dark matter found?


tmdarkmatter
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

But the worst thing is, that we might need a big telescope at the edge of our solar system and at the edge of our milky way to better investigate this. Because it is possible, that after leaving our solar system or the milky way, we would suddenly see a lot more light around us, so we might have to increase our estimates of light produced by stars.

This is incompatible with the inverse-square law for any conserved stuff that escapes from a source. You seem to be suggesting that more photons are being created the farther away from the source. It's the other way aroung: The farther away from a source, the rarer and rarer the "stuff" becomes, the quantity of stuff per unit of solid angle being approximately constant. Not consistent with the distribution of velocities we observe. Apply the virial theorem and you'll see. Do a google search "virial theorem for galaxies" and get familiar with it. You'll rule out your idea in a matter of minutes.

Visible, infrarred, and UV light etc, is how we know there's visible matter there, not the bulk of the matter that we don't see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

The diameter of the visible universe is ~93 billion LY

Yes, I know what you mean, but this would be the universe if we take into account that the universe kept expanding while the light of the furthest galaxies was travelling to us, but I prefer to only consider "visible universe" the part of the universe we can actually "see" so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

It would be falsified if light has no mass at all of any kind or if the "mass of light" coming from all light sources in our universe would be insufficient in order to replace at least a noticeable part of the so-called "dark matter".

It is insufficient, and exceedingly so:

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

Quote

Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe.

(My emphasis added.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, joigus said:

You seem to be suggesting that more photons are being created the farther away from the source.

No, I am not saying that more photons are being created. Instead I suppose that the light and mass of our sun or the light and mass of our galaxy might interfere with how we see the other stars or galaxies and their light intensity. For example, if you watch the andromeda galaxy, it has an apparent magnitude of 3,44 and the apparent magnitude of sirius is -1,33. It seems as if Andromeda is only shining as strong as 21 billion suns, but astronomers think that andromeda should contain a billion stars. I know that red dwarfs shine with a much lower intensity, but it seems as if light is being manipulated by light or mass when entering our milky way, so that less light arrives at earth for us to see. Maybe stars shine much stronger than we think. With mass manipulating light I am talking about the famous Pound-Rebka experiment.

14 minutes ago, joigus said:

It is insufficient, and exceedingly so:

Of course, I would be totally disappointed if you would not be convinced of this at the beginning and maybe during the next decades!

Finding the solution for dark matter will definitely not be easy.

But there are still a lot of anomalies (maybe millions of them) in space and each of these anomalies might get the "light mass" closer and closer to become significant and to replace "dark matter". The light mass might at the end generate elephants. :)

I will mention some of these anomalies next week. Don´t worry, the journey is just beginning, this is only the introduction. The light mass is just the main ingredient.

At least my very simple calculations are showing 11 times the mass of the milky way in a sphere with a radius of 25 million light years surrounding us. With time, we might be able to make this sphere smaller and smaller until it fits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Yes, I know what you mean, but this would be the universe if we take into account that the universe kept expanding while the light of the furthest galaxies was travelling to us, but I prefer to only consider "visible universe" the part of the universe we can actually "see" so far.

The visible universe is the universe we can see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, swansont said:

The visible universe is the universe we can see. 

In that case, why can we not see galaxies more than 13,5 billion light years away? Are there no more galaxies around us? I know that you will now say that these galaxies have travelled away from us in the meanwhile, but what makes you so sure that the universe is actually expanding (faster than the speed of light/"nonsense" balloon theory)? I know that you will now talk about the Hubble constant and the red shifting. But if you check the Pound-Rebka experiment, red shifting can also come from the effect of gravity on light, so I am actually not sure if galaxies are more red shifted as further away they are because they are moving away or because the light coming from them is being manipulated more by the mass of all the galaxies in between and even our own milky way. I think, there is a contradiction, but science currently accepts both theories to be true. Science should be chosing one of them and the Pount-Rebka experiment seems to be a much better match to our observations of space. But this is only my opinion and I am sure that I am now going to get heavily criticized. But what would science be if it is not possible to criticize?

Anyway, I think that the universe should be much bigger than we currently think, it is just that we cannot see what is further away because of extreme red shifting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

I think, there is a contradiction, but science currently accepts both theories to be true. Science should be chosing one of them

There are three types of frequency shift - gravitational, cosmological, and Doppler. If you look at just one single object in isolation, then you are right in that one cannot uniquely decompose total frequency shift into these three components, based on mere observation of light received from that object. However, we don’t see objects in isolation, but an entire background of very distant objects - so we can examine them in a larger context. What we find is that there is a clear correlation between observed redshifts and distance, and that this correlation is uniform across all directions in the sky. Furthermore, we observe that all these objects recede away from each other, not just from us. This is entirely inconsistent with how gravitational redshift would work.

So no, there is no contradiction - we are simply opting for the explanation that best fits the available observational data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

In that case, why can we not see galaxies more than 13,5 billion light years away?

We do.

CEERS-93316 has a proper distance of more than 34 billion LY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEERS-93316

HD1 is more that 33 billion LY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD1_(galaxy)

 

2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

But what would science be if it is not possible to criticize?

Criticism must be accompanied by evidence. Not appeal to personal incredulity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

What we find is that there is a clear correlation between observed redshifts and distance

This correlation would also be clear if it would be between observed redshifts and exposure to gravity multiplied by time of exposure. The farther away a galaxy is, the higher should the exposure to gravity be in total.

But as I do not like the idea of galaxies travelling faster then the speed of light, nor the idea of a far too young universe, I would definitely prefer the gravity option.

If we consider that the milky way only spinned 70 times so far since the big bang, I just cannot imagine that the shape of the milky way would be so perfectly aligned in only 70 spins. Just compare this with the amount of spins earth needed around the sun and earth is only one simple sphere, not a complex structure like a galaxy with arms and a perfect center.

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

all these objects recede away from each other

If we think that redshifts correlate with objects moving away and redshifts increase gradually at increasing distances, this automatically fulfills the idea of objects separating from each other at the same time. There are no two different ways to measure this.

But this same correlation would also be present if we use gravity as a cause of redshifting. In this case, each object farther away would just have been exposed to more gravity than the closer objects what definitely makes sense considering the longer exposure to gravity.

The only way to confirm if the galaxies are moving away from us and the universe is expanding would be by measuring changes of the size of galaxies in time. But how many million years would we have to wait until a galaxy 13 billion light years away (a dot) would get small enough for us to confirm that it is actually moving away, even if almost at the speed of light? But if it is not moving away in millions of years, this would definitely refute the idea of a big bang and an expanding universe.

In this regard, it is highly suspicious that the only big galaxy (easy to study) next to us (andromeda) is moving our way and is not moving away. And it is also suspicious that such galaxy movements are also difficult to confirm with all other close galaxies, because obviously their speed away from us should be much lower than the speed of the distant ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

This correlation would also be clear if it would be between observed redshifts and exposure to gravity multiplied by time of exposure. The farther away a galaxy is, the higher should the exposure to gravity be in total.

Higher “exposure” to gravity? How much is gravity going to affect light in deep space?

How does “time of exposure” factor in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

This correlation would also be clear if it would be between observed redshifts and exposure to gravity multiplied by time of exposure. The farther away a galaxy is, the higher should the exposure to gravity be in total.

 

In this regard, it is highly suspicious that the only big galaxy (easy to study) next to us (andromeda) is moving our way and is not moving away. And it is also suspicious that such galaxy movements are also difficult to confirm with all other close galaxies, because obviously their speed away from us should be much lower than the speed of the distant ones.

The first argument is just a rehash of the old "Tired light" argument which has been dismissed because it is not consistent with observations. 

As far as Andromeda goes,  No, it is not suspicious at all that Andromeda is approaching, as it is part of our local gravitationally bound group of galaxies.  The gravitational attraction between these galaxies holds them in orbit around their common center of gravity.  Galaxies are not evenly spread out, but are grouped in a hierarchy of structures; groups, clusters, super-clusters, with voids in between.  It isn't until you get to the size range of the larger structures that the overall expansion of the universe overrides gravitational attraction

If you had done any serious investigation into the subject, you would have learned this, and your lack of knowledge of it shows that you didn't really bother to do more than just scratch the surface of the subject before jumping to conclusions. If you are not going to go to the trouble of doing even a moderate amount of effort of gathering basic information,  why should anyone else go to the trouble of taking your musings seriously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Higher “exposure” to gravity? How much is gravity going to affect light in deep space?

How does “time of exposure” factor in?

Yes, this effect is currently being completely ignored. I think it is funny to think that the only places where mass is affecting the trajectory of light or manipulating light are Einstein rings. At all other places in the universe, light should not be affected by gravity? I think that is a big mistake we are currently making.

Just look at our sun just minutes before sunset and you will see that the sun is no longer round (similar to the effect of an Einstein ring). That´s because we are not seeing the sun directly, but only its light and this light is being manipulated by earth´s mass. The same happens during a solar eclipse. The mass of the sun deviates the light of stars behind it and the mass of the moon deviates the light coming from the stellar corona.

So if we reflect about this, it seems that all objects in space have their own Einstein rings. So all objects seem to be manipulating not only the trajectory of light, but also its frequency.

With time of exposure I mean that if the light travels for longer periods, it is more probable that it passes by objects with mass, so the light coming from far away should be more manipulated then the light coming from closer objects. Also, it is not the same if for example a galaxy uses its attractive force on light for 1 million years than for 2. The longer the effect, the stronger the redshift.

I think there are also two possible explanations of why we cannot "see" galaxies that are further away than 13,5 billion light years:

- the redshift is so extense, that the light arriving at our telescope is no longer visible

- the trajectory of the light coming from these galaxies is so deviated, that it starts to travel in enormous circles around the source galaxy instead of travelling straight forward. Maybe it is no longer possible for the light to stay on its trajectory and actually reach us due to the high amount of mass in between.

3 minutes ago, Janus said:

If you had done any serious investigation into the subject, you would have learned this, and your lack of knowledge of it shows that you didn't really bother to do more than just scratch the surface of the subject before jumping to conclusions. If you are not going to go to the trouble of doing even a moderate amount of effort of gathering basic information,  why should anyone else go to the trouble of taking your musings seriously?

I am sorry if I irritated you somehow. Of course I have at least gathered this basic information and I am not an expert in this topic. Of course the distribution of galaxies is very complex with really big (surprising) structures. I am just "proposing" the idea of gravity instead of speed of galaxies as cause for redshifts. We all have to further study the structure of the universe in order to better understand it, that´s what life is all about, to keep learning every day until the last. Also, if I say that gravity makes more sense than the speed of galaxies as cause of redshift, it is only my opinion. All theories and ideas will always have supporters and opposers, even the idea that earth is flat or that we never went to the moon still have some supporters. Obviously, my ideas might have almost no supporters and almost only opposers, but that´s ok to me.

If I do not know something, I am asking you or somebody who knows to help me. That is what we should all do to improve our civilization, we need collaboration, not enemies. And nobody can know everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Yes, this effect is currently being completely ignored. I think it is funny to think that the only places where mass is affecting the trajectory of light or manipulating light are Einstein rings. At all other places in the universe, light should not be affected by gravity? I think that is a big mistake we are currently making.

If you aren’t near a mass, there’s little gravity to have any effect.

 

14 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Just look at our sun just minutes before sunset and you will see that the sun is no longer round (similar to the effect of an Einstein ring). That´s because we are not seeing the sun directly, but only its light and this light is being manipulated by earth´s mass.

No, that’s refraction from the atmosphere.

14 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

 

With time of exposure I mean that if the light travels for longer periods, it is more probable that it passes by objects with mass, so the light coming from far away should be more manipulated then the light coming from closer objects.

I don’t see how this follows. Light passing near a mass has to fall into the well and then climb out. There might be a deflection, but why would there be a net effect on redshift?

14 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Also, it is not the same if for example a galaxy uses its attractive force on light for 1 million years than for 2. The longer the effect, the stronger the redshift.

That’s proximity to mass, not time. How much of a change in gravitational potential is there between 1 million and 2 million light years away from a mass?

 

14 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

I think there are also two possible explanations of why we cannot "see" galaxies that are further away than 13,5 billion light years:

I already showed that we do see galaxies that are more distant.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, swansont said:

No, that’s refraction from the atmosphere

I am sorry, but I am seeing earth not very round here either at the beginning:

 

Maybe it is just my perception :)

But maybe we found the atmosphere as a big elephant and final solution and are ignoring the fact that earth and moon etc. should also manipulate light at least slightly.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

If you aren’t near a mass, there’s little gravity to have any effect

The question is what is "near a mass". If you check the Einstein rings found so far, it is light very far away from a galaxy that becomes manipulated. The effect of Einstein rings can be on a small scale like stars or on a big scale like galaxies. "No effect" should not be possible because gravity is infinite. I think "negligible" is the correct term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, ok, so the effect is really impossible to see to the unaided eye. Einstein was of course also checking this. Maybe earth has more mass and the effect would be a little more but still negligible. I wonder if there are images of the sun showing up from behind Jupiter or Saturn.

They say that it was also very hard to confirm that the sun is deviating the light coming from the stars behind. They had to find a perfect solar eclipse and take some very difficult pictures.

Earth is not round either lol

Edited by tmdarkmatter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s proximity to mass, not time. How much of a change in gravitational potential is there between 1 million and 2 million light years away from a mass?

No, I did not mean 1 or 2 million light years away, I mean it is not the same if the same gravitational force is being exerted on light while it is travelling for one or two million years. It is both important, how strong the force is and for how long it is beeing exerted on the light. I think we are again dealing with the problem of the size of the universe. Maybe the gravitation is very low when light passes by a galaxy, but it also needs to travel for maybe 1 million years to finally pass by. And don´t forget that when light is travelling in our direction, it is also being holded back by the galaxy it is abandoning. You might say, that it would also be accelerated by the next galaxy and then again being retarded and so on for many times, but in total, I suppose that light should rather lose some of its frequency (redshift) while travelling and the further the source is, the more frequency it should lose. Also dont forget that it is pulled to the sides as well, not only falling into wells and climbing out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

No, I did not mean 1 or 2 million light years away, I mean it is not the same if the same gravitational force is being exerted on light while it is travelling for one or two million years. It is both important, how strong the force is and for how long it is beeing exerted on the light.

Light traveling a million years will travel a million light years (d = ct). Gravitational redshift depends on distance; GM/rc^2 which is based on gravitational potential, not force

 

23 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

I think we are again dealing with the problem of the size of the universe. Maybe the gravitation is very low when light passes by a galaxy, but it also needs to travel for maybe 1 million years to finally pass by. And don´t forget that when light is travelling in our direction, it is also being holded back by the galaxy it is abandoning. You might say, that it would also be accelerated by the next galaxy and then again being retarded and so on for many times, but in total, I suppose that light should rather lose some of its frequency (redshift) while travelling and the further the source is, the more frequency it should lose. Also dont forget that it is pulled to the sides as well, not only falling into wells and climbing out.

Falling into the well and climbing out gives the same shift, only differing in sign. The Pound-Rebka experiment confirms this.  If the effect were not symmetric you’d have an issue with conservation of energy.

So what matters is the shift when it climbs out of the original well. The biggest effect happens near the source. The shift going from 1 million LY to 2 million LY is going to be tiny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Falling into the well and climbing out gives the same shift, only differing in sign. The Pound-Rebka experiment confirms this.  If the effect were not symmetric you’d have an issue with conservation of energy.

So what matters is the shift when it climbs out of the original well. The biggest effect happens near the source. The shift going from 1 million LY to 2 million LY is going to be tiny

Yes, there must be something we are not taking into account yet. It is like the light is climbing out more and more the further the source is away. It is like the light is climbing in total, away from a mass that is available in all directions. Anyway, the Pound-Rebka experiment is just an experiment in a tower of 25 meters. We would need to repeat this experiment on a much larger scale. It does not matter if the shift is tiny, don´t forget how vast space and all these galaxies are. Any little shift sums up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Yes, there must be something we are not taking into account yet.

Why? What’s missing, and what is the evidence that it’s missing?

6 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

It is like the light is climbing out more and more the further the source is away.

Since it’s 1/r, the climb become easier and easier as you move away. The additional shift gets smaller and smaller.

6 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

It is like the light is climbing in total, away from a mass that is available in all directions.

Available in all directions? No, but then (as has already been pointed out) anything that is isotropically distributed adds nothing, since it cancels out.

6 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Anyway, the Pound-Rebka experiment is just an experiment in a tower of 25 meters. We would need to repeat this experiment on a much larger scale. It does not matter if the shift is tiny, don´t forget how vast space and all these galaxies are.

GR has been confirmed to a reasonably high precision in many experiments. Gravitational redshift included - it’s a critical part of GPS working properly.

6 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Any little shift sums up.

Not without some new physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, I have a very crazy idea lol let me see if you like it:

If we take a galaxy that is very far away (13 billion light years), it means that the light traveled during 13 billion years. Well, as we are supposing, during that time all these stars lose at least part of their mass as light/energy, so actually galaxies should become lighter and lighter. So when this light finally arrives at our earth, all galaxies (including ours) are a little lighter than at the beginning, so the light now gains less frequency when arriving at the mass of our galaxy. At the end the light is more red shifted and at the same time the energy of the photons is being conserved. Lol, that would be funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

It is like the light is climbing out more and more the further the source is away.

What do you mean by this? What does it mean "light climbs out more and more the farther away from the source it is?"

I don't think that's physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is like the photons abandon one universe with more concentrated matter (baryonic + energy/light) and arrive at another universe with a less concentrated matter (baryonic + energy/light)

1 minute ago, joigus said:

What do you mean by this? What does it mean "light climbs out more and more the farther away from the source it is?

Hi. It is just a method to explain that light has to deal with gravity on its way to us. We are discussing the Pound-Rebka experiment. I am sorry, if I do not have the right words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Hi. It is just a method to explain that light has to deal with gravity on its way to us. We are discussing the Pound-Rebka experiment. I am sorry, if I do not have the right words.

Oh, don't worry about the words. It could be arranged if you show some equations. What about the virial theorem? It is essential to understand the velocity distribution of objects moving around in a gravitationally-bound cluster.

Everything you've said so far is inconsistent with what I know about the virial theorem for galaxies. And you don't need GR for it. A classical calculation would suffice, as the speed of the galaxies is safely within the non-relativistic regime.

Mind you, photons themselves are always relativistic, and red-shifted, and subject to gravitational lensing, but the speed of the galaxies due to the presence of photons is not, and could be treated non-relativistically.

I want to see how visible radiation from galaxies accounts for a big whopping bulk of mass that represents most of the mass and goes far and far away, well outside of the galactic halos, and somehow stays thereabouts.

What you propose is so amazing that I --for one-- demand no less than extraordinarily convincing proof for this extraordinarily outlandish claim.

How is the light emitted from a lamp almost 6 times the mass of the lamp?

You tell us.

(When I say mass I mean energy.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.