Jump to content

Galaxy rotation rates explained without Dark Matter


Declan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Oh I wasn't going to. I was just conceptualizing. Yeah some kind of uniform point distribution which was skewed by its proximity to a SMBH EH. That's a scalar right?

A scalar would give a numerical value for each point on space-time and does not depend on the coordinates used.

 

 

But my point was it seems Declan's idea is just a way of amplifying gravity produced by the special case of BHS and their EHS. It increases the curvature of the entire galaxy, and creates flat spots at the lagrange points between galaxies/SMBH, (or just equidistant points if that type of maths doesnt apply to galaxy/SMBH clusters)

I guess so ... though we are not sure as he seems to flip back and fore between a new interpretation of GR and a genuinely new model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Declan, is there any difference to the models from simply adding extra mass to BHS? If not, Occam can jump in here. How do you intend to fine tune your model so that it fits with observation. What reason would you give for this?

A scalar would give a numerical value for each point on space-time and does not depend on the coordinates

Oh so you would instead assign a value for curvature. Rather than it looking graphically like the rubber sheet analogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh so you would instead assign a value for curvature. Rather than it looking graphically like the rubber sheet analogy.

By curvature one usually - in this context - means the Riemann curvature tensor. On any coordinate patch you can think of the Riemann curvature tensor, as you can with any tensor, as a collection of functions on that patch. However, as you change coordinates the values of all these functions will change - it wil be quite a mess in general. So, in this respect the Riemann curvature tensor does not give you a 'value' for the curvature at a point. However, if the tensor is zero in some coordinate patch then it will remain zero under changes of coordinates.

 

To define the 'value' of curvature at a point you need to construct a scalar from this tensor. There are several ways to do this. You can consider the Ricci scalar , the Kreschmann scalar and so on. All of these are build from contractions, covatiant derivates and dualisation of the fundamental thing - the Riemann curvature tensor.

Edited by ajb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does this long range scalar field, which doesn't really interact with normal matter/mass, change in the presence of a BH to a vector field so as to accelerate normal matter/mass ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To ajb:

 

But I'm not trying to change GR, just a metric that is used by it for black holes.

My theory doesn't rely on Gm/r for the potential - whatever the shape of the potential field is for a situation described by GR is the same shape for my field too. I am just saying that given a certain value for the potential at a point in space will determine the speed of light and rate of time at that point.

 

To Sorcerer:

 

Good to hear your interest in my idea:

Essentially the idea is that a BH has undergone gravitational collapse and so the gravity field around it cannot escape the event horizon either - resulting in the energy field in space being consumed by the black hole too. As it is consumed, the rest of space moves to fill the gap thus setting up a flow of space into the BH. The energy field (a positive potential) is most dense near the BH and drops off with inverse square law as r increases; but the volume of the spherical shell at distance r increases with inverse square law too - so the rate of flow into the BH is essentially constant with distance (unless mid way between to equivalent BHs as you pointed out). Thus orbiting stars in the Galaxy experience an extra centripetal acceleration towards the center of the Galaxy that is essentially constant with distance - thus giving the observed orbital profiles for galaxies. It is not the same as just adding mass to the BH. If the galaxy's motion through space is added into the picture then the observed assymetry in orbital velocities on one side of the Galaxy compared to the other could be explained as the inflow vector of space either adding or subtracting to the galaxy's velocity vector through space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I'm not trying to change GR ...

Okay...

 

...just a metric that is used by it for black holes.

 

So you propose a solution of the field equations - so can you show that this is a vacuum solution? If it is a vacuum solution, then what is the interpretation of this solution? (ie, the space-time around what?) Any commenet on Birkhoff's theorem?

 

If it is not a vacuum solution, then what kind of matter do you have? What about the various energy conditions?

 

 

 

My theory doesn't rely on Gm/r for the potential....

Okay, this is what I would expect as you are not thinking of the Newtonian limit... right?

 

 

- whatever the shape of the potential field is for a situation described by GR is the same shape for my field too.

You really don't read anything I write do you?

 

The potential only makes sense in the Newtonian limit. Other than that we loosley take the metric to be the 'potential'. I have no idea what you could mean otherwise by potential here.

 

 

I am just saying that given a certain value for the potential at a point in space will determine the speed of light and rate of time at that point.

Well, you keep saying things like this... but it is just BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep flip-flopping on the field. First its not sace-time which is being consumed by the BH as that is just c0-ordinates.

But now in your definition to Sorcerer, it IS space-time which carries the energy into the BH.

 

And how exactly does a BH keep its own gravity from escaping ?

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To ajb:

 

I don't have the time to familiarize myself with the maths involved in converting the metric to the Christoffel symbols etc at the moment

So, you go around talking about them like some kind of expert, yet when asked for them, conveniently 'I dont't have time'. Give me a break. It is obvious that you don't understand the math. That's fine, man, we all started somewhere. But remaining willfully ignorant is not fine.

 

You want to promote your ideas? That's great. Science always welcomes new ideas. But you need to show us, using math, how your idea is improved over the current best ideas. That means you need to understand the current best ideas, first. That means you need to understand the math.

 

This constant use and misuse of words had lead to this thread being almost 400 posts long now. Words are fungible, and take different meanings to different people. But math is objective. When one writes F=ma, everyone knows exactly what that means. But words can be different to different people -- leading to long threads like this. People in this thread have tried to help you, but you have to put some work in too.

 

'I don't have time' is an insufficient excuse. There is no time limit here. How long do you need? If you really cared about your idea, you'd be putting work in to make it understandable to as many people as possible. Take the time necessary to actually learn how to write out exactly what your model does so that we can undertake a proper investigation of your idea instead of this constant guessing game about what word choice you've made each time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok - as I have said in previous posts the energy field is the sum of the wave functions of all the quantum particles in the Universe. Every quantum particle is a 3D standing wave that extends to infinity with ever dimishing amplitude. The waves that comprise the particles (and hence the energy field of space) are the most basic form of energy waves - hence the name Energy Field Theory.

 

 

Wave functions do not possess energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To ajb:

 

I don't have the time to familiarize myself with the maths involved in converting the metric to the Christoffel symbols etc at the moment - but I don't need to because the curvature is completely defined by the metric - the rest is just known maths.

 

I don't know why you keep saying the field is not defined - I already told you the field is the (positive) gravitational potential field. It's value determines the gravitational time dilation & the speed of light, and it's curvature is the same curvature as in GR (except, of course, for the extra curvature of the inflow due to black holes). The energy of the field is represented in the Einstein Tensor, separately from the energy of the 'solid' matter.

 

In order to have your model describe any mechanical work on matter in our Schwartzchild system. Other than what is already defined by GR. You require the math and added energy.

 

Handwaving this fact away isn't going to do anything.

 

If your fields makes no alterations to the SR vacuum solutions.

 

WE don't need your field.

 

If your field alters the Schwartzchild metric. YOU NEED the new christoffel symbols and geodesics.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never mind.

 

I'm sorry that you cannot see what I am talking about.

I am not familiar with the inner workings of the maths of General Relativity as you are, but as I said I am not trying to change that.

 

I have enjoyed some of our discussions, and at times is seemed we were making progress in reaching a common understanding, but we seem to keep coming back to the same misunderstandings.

 

At least I tried to get through to you...

 

Can we stop now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry that you cannot see what I am talking about.

Arrogant, I would say.

 

I am not familiar with the inner workings of the maths of General Relativity as you are, but as I said I am not trying to change that.

Please think about this... if you don't know how general relativity is formulated, then how can you be sure that nothing changes in your 'theory'? (Not that we/you have much of a clue here as to what your theory really is.)

 

...but we seem to keep coming back to the same misunderstandings.

Indeed, it is a shame that you just don't listen to those who know GR. Which begs the question of why you posted here in the first place?

 

At least I tried to get through to you...

The arrogance shown by you is quite amazing. The willfull ignorance is what really gets me.

 

 

Can we stop now?

I agree... you have nothing and shown nothing. You are not willing to take in anything that we have all said. You keep grasp of your misconceptions and admit not knowing general relativity. Only a great attitude shift could keep this thread going.

 

And on that we are willing to dicuss physics and mathematics with you - but please stop trying to push you non-existent 'theory'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

thread locked.

 

The OP failed to provide the necessary mathematics to back up his claim and showed a lack of knowledge of, and a refusal to engage with the physics underlying the question at hand.

 

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.