Jump to content

Galaxy rotation rates explained without Dark Matter


Declan
 Share

Recommended Posts

To Swansont:

 

I have posted another image:

 

https://s32.postimg.org/c4n999efp/Vector_Addition.png

 

This shows vector addition:

The first triangle shows the velocity vector of a star in orbit (V1) and the added vector due to Newtonian acceleration for a unit of time (V2) to give the new star's velocity vector (V3).

The second triangle (with the first triangle overlayed) shows the starting velocity vector (V4), plus the vector due to Newtonian acceleration (V5) plus the additional inward flow vector (V6), resulting in the new star's velocity vector (V7).

As you can see, the star's orbit has curved inwards more given the same starting velocity. If the starting velocity was higher in the case of the second triangle (with inward flow) the star could achieve the same orbit as the first triangle (without inward flow), but its orbital velocity would be higher.

 

The key thing about black holes is gravitational collapse - the gravitational field cannot escape in the same way light cannot, so the space-time field begins to flow into the black hole.


To Strange:

 

The space-time flow rate into the black hole is constant with distance, so it acts as a constant acceleration force to objects in orbit around the galaxy, but over very large distances the expansion of the Universe will diminish and then eventually reverse the flow to expansion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The space-time flow rate into the black hole is constant with distance, so it acts as a constant acceleration force to objects in orbit around the galaxy, but over very large distances the expansion of the Universe will diminish and then eventually reverse the flow to expansion.

 

As it is exerting the same force on distant stars as it does on nearby stars, can you explain why the stars orbiting Sagittarius A* follow keplerian orbits. As some of these orbits are very eccentric, I would expect a noticeable correction to the orbit from the effect your describe. (I might calculate it but you don't provide any data that makes this possible.)

 

It also isn't clear why black holes form in your model. If gravity is caused by the inflow of space-time, how does this create a black hole?

 

 

The space-time flow rate into the black hole is constant with distance

 

That means that the volume of space time flowing towards the black hole goes up as the square (cube?) of distance. If you have more "stuff" flowing towards the black hole further away, then it must disappear before it gets to the black hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geometry isn't everything...

Some of us think differently here ... but that is another story.

 

...it just indicates how space affects matter, there are real mechanistic reasons for the forces that cause the matter to move - that comes down to energy in some sort.

 

It is the mathematicians tool for expressing what is happening in the real world.

 

I don't really follow your philosophy here.

 

In physics we create mathematical models of nature, or usually part thereof. The mechanisms you speak of should or really must, be described in terms of mathematics.

 

 

What is special about black holes that they cause this flow, but other masses would not, even if their gravitational attraction was larger?

To my mind this signals a breakdown in the equivalence principle. This by itself suggests that something is not right.

Edited by ajb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reply to Mordred,

 

Why do you say there is no ether? Is it because of the Michelson Morley result? This can easily be explained and proven to work if there is an ether, as I have done. All of the effects of Relativity can be explained and proven, as I have done, BECAUSE there is an ether. If you don't believe me read my Energy Field Theory paper .

I already read that paper you havent proven anything. The paper and the spacetime flowing terminology is garbage.

 

There is far more experiments with far greater accuracy that prove ether theiries wrong. Lack of stellar aberation for one.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The key thing about black holes is gravitational collapse - the gravitational field cannot escape the same way light cannot"

 

So how does a BH manifest its gravitational field ?

If its continuously 'eating' space-time ( AKA its field ) then test masses are NOT falling into the BH because of its field, but rather because of entrainment with the infalling space-time.

This is completely at odds with GR, unless the two effects are exactly equivalent.

But GR has been shown to be effective and accurate, even in the case of orbits about massive BHs.

And if the two are exactly equivalent, you haven't brought anything new, just an alternate model.

( but one which still doesn't adequately describe this 'flow', and the sources supplying space-time for the BH sinks )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So show this derivation. It should be simple enough.

 

What is special about black holes that they cause this flow, but other masses would not, even if their gravitational attraction was larger?

Good point.

 

Lol I still still find it amazing how ether supporters ignore thermodynamics.

I have yet to see any apply it.

 

Just like the OP they ignore any counter equations. Particularly shown by the OP by ignoring the temperature contributions due to adding additional degrees of freedom to the spin 2 statistics of gravity.

 

the gravity wave detections would never have shown the same results if subjected to ether dragging.

 

Yet ether theorists continue to ignore such data.

 

The incredible part is the foolish assumptions that a few rudimentary formulas is going to overturn the extremely well tested GR.

 

Alrighty then

 

[latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a{t^2}[d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2][/latex]

 

[latex]S\kappa,r= \begin{cases} R sin(r/R &(k=+1)\\ r &(k=0)\\ R sin(r/R) &(k=-1) \end {cases}[/latex]

 

a is the scale factor which correlates expansion

 

[latex]Proper distance =\frac{\stackrel{.}{a}(t)}{a}[/latex]

[latex]H(t)=\frac{\stackrel{.}{a}(t)}{a(t)}[/latex]

 

So go ahead apply your spacetime flow to these equations.

 

Or if you prefer the Schwartzchild or Kerr metric.

 

Naturally you'll probably handwave that away as well.

 

Next thing you will tell me that you have an ether that doesnt affect gravitational redshift.

 

After all you ignore temperature and pressurevrelationships including luminosity relations that wavelengths has influence upon.

 

Must be nice to have an undetectable ether that affects nothing.

 

Of course if your spacetime geometry is flowing you dont need an ether. You can just let your black holes gobble up your coordinates.

 

Try it assign a vector value to every 4d coordinate. Essentailly a vector field.

 

Now have your spacetime coordinates and vectors flow into the BH.

 

Are you starting to get the point on just how foolish the term "Spacetime flow" is?

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Strange:

 

Eccentric orbits are still possible, the gradient in the gravitational field still remains, just that an extra acceleration that is constant with distance from the black hole is added on too.

 

The inflowing doesn't cause a black hole, the other way around: when a black hole forms, the inflowing starts.

 

The density of the energy field is higher closer to the black hole than further away (by the same proportion as the surface area of the shell changes) - Thus the same amount of energy is flowing into the black hole at each shell of distance r from it.

The gradient in the energy field is the Newtonian gravitational acceleration.

 

 

To ajb:

Absolutely mathematics is essential, but if it comes to choosing between a known mathematical model versus real-world observations, we must believe the real world observations and modify the mathematical model to match it.

 

 

To Mordred:

 

Post 1:

Then you haven't, or don't want to, understand it.

The presence of the field is what explains Time Dilation, Length contraction, mass increase, and yes stellar aberration. People who believe in ether like theories often use stellar aberration as an example proving that a field exists as without it there is no explanation for stellar aberration.

 

Post2:

There are a number of different ether theories.

There is no ether dragging in my model (unless you mean frame-dragging due to moving mass).

I already suggested a minor change to the Schwartzchild metric to account for inflow around black holes (see post #38).

Quite the opposite, the redshift occurs because light is flowing through the space-time energy field as if through a medium, and the medium is either being stretched (expansion) or the source/detector is approaching/receding (Doppler shift).

The space-time energy field (call it ether if you like) is far from undetectable and affecting nothing: it is the cause for Time dilation, length contraction, mass increase, stellar aberration, gravitation etc.

Nothing you have said makes me think the idea is foolish. Just out of interest: if the coordinate system derives is source from mass/energy in GR, what happens when that mass/energy falls into a black hole? Doesn't it get gobbled up just the same?

I'm guessing you will say it just adds to the curvature around the black hole - well if that is the case, the same can be said for the energy in the inflowing field that gets gobbled up too.

 

 

To MigL:

Normal gravitational acceleration still applies as this is due to the gradient in the energy field, it is just that the entire field is moving towards the black hole.

However, as it moves towards the black hole the energy field increases in density (due to the decreasing area of each shell closer to the black hole) - so the gradient in the field doesn't change over time.


Close to a large black hole, the normal gravitational acceleration (due to field gradient) would be the dominant effect, and any 'offset' in acceleration levels due to inflow could have been mis-interpreted as the black hole having a larger mass than it actually has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is in GR the mass density infalls into the BH. Not the the spacetime coordinates them self. Yet the descriptives you give has the coordinates infalling along with the mass content.

 

You still dont see the difference.

 

Hence the last equation I posted which models the coordinates with or without curvature for a homogenous and isotropic fluid.

 

However like I figured you didnt look at the equations I posted to understand what Ive been getting at.

 

Just like ignore the temperature contributions of radiation or quantum fields.

 

If you doubt what Ive been stating its covered in the Elements of astrophysics text I linked earlier.

 

This includes different variations of various field equations.

 

Look at Schwartzchild metric. It is a static solution to GR. The term STATIC means the metric is static. (Spacetime)

 

The rotating Kerr metric involves frame dragging but that does not include infalling spacetime.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why couldn't you still retain the coordinate system, yet allow the energy field that is defining the curvature of the coordindate system to flow into the black hole - that way we are both happy & the energy field is being treated in the same way as normal mass/energy?

 

You are still thinking of the energy field as a radiation field made from quanta of energy - it is not, the waves are sub-quantum waves. They are the extended fields from real quanta that exist elsewhere in the Universe.

Every particle/quantum has infinite extent (it is a 3D wave function), but most of its energy exists within the Classical particle diameter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Strange:

 

Eccentric orbits are still possible, the gradient in the gravitational field still remains, just that an extra acceleration that is constant with distance from the black hole is added on too.

 

Then the orbits should differ from those predicted by Newtonian gravity. Only you can say by how much. (Except you can't. Because you don't have a model, just handwaving.)

 

But I find it hard to imagine that a force that is able to modify the orbits of stars 50,000 light years away will not have an obvious effect on a nearby star.

 

BTW. Thanks for providing yet another data point in my survey on the relationship between crackpottery and the ability to master the complexities of a button marked "Quote".

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need to get personal. I jumped straight into the Forum & haven't had time to familiarize myself with all the controls yet.

 

There might be assumptions (about the masses of star and/or black hole) being made in the analysis based on current theory - I don't know the details.


Incidentally, I did a calculation on the extra inflow acceleration that is required to explain the Orbital Velocity for a star at a distance of 15000 light years away from the center of the M33 galaxy (travelling at 100 km/sec).

The acceleration comes out to 7.04669x10^-11 m/sec^2.

 

So for a star close to the black hole, this tiny acceleration would make very little difference to the star's orbit due to Newtonian gravity. Well within the error bars I would guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why couldn't you still retain the coordinate system, yet allow the energy field that is defining the curvature of the coordindate system to flow into the black hole - that way we are both happy & the energy field is being treated in the same way as normal mass/energy?

 

You are still thinking of the energy field as a radiation field made from quanta of energy - it is not, the waves are sub-quantum waves. They are the extended fields from real quanta that exist elsewhere in the Universe.

Every particle/quantum has infinite extent (it is a 3D wave function), but most of its energy exists within the Classical particle diameter.

You have no idea how happy that would make me.😀😁😂😃😆

 

I have absolutely no problem with a particle field falling into a BH. Even if it is a quasi particle field.

 

 

Now that being said. We need to define the characteristics of this field.

 

1) is its interactions identical to gravity?;if not define which interactions it has

2) are these quasi particles massless? Or have rest mass.

3) As Swansort asked why only BHs and not every form of mass.?

 

4) Considering all particle fields are also falling into a BH if you field is doing the same. What causes a distinquished vector than any other infalling fields? If not then what vector property of your quasi particles causes an influence on other particle fields infalling rates.

 

 

We wont worry about spin statistics for the moment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok - now we are getting somewhere.

 

The field's intensity defines the gravitational potential (curvature) present in the coordinate system - so I behaves just like gravity in GR.

The higher the density of the field, the slower time is in the field (which is determined by the speed at which waves travel through the medium - all physical objects are made of waves and so all physical processes are slowed down when the propagation speed through the medium is slowed).

 

Light/matter waves move through this field as if it were a medium (something like water waves) at the speed if light.

When a particle (3D standing wave) is accelerated in this medium, the wave components of the particle's standing wave are either flowing upstream or downstream wrt the medium.

Thus they get Doppler shifted - this is the cause of length contraction and mass increase (Due to the sum of the upstream and downstream wave components).

 

The field is not made of quasi-particles, apart from virtual particles that form when the essentially random wave activity temporarily forms a quasi-particle structure (like passing water waves adding to form a big wave).

The Field/Medium has energy (as does the gravitational field) and is in fact the sum of the wave functions of real quantum particles (each are well defined 3D wave functions that are added together).

 

All mass generates this energy field, but only black holes are able to consume it due to gravitational collapse.

In effect when a black hole consumes it, it is actually consuming normal matter, but only the thin cloud of this matter/energy that extends into space around a quantum particle.

 

Are you understanding me so far?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely mathematics is essential, but if it comes to choosing between a known mathematical model versus real-world observations, we must believe the real world observations and modify the mathematical model to match it.

And this is what people indeed do. It is good that you realise that models are mathematical, but you still have not carefully defined any of the constructs that you want to use.

 

Why couldn't you still retain the coordinate system, yet allow the energy field that is defining the curvature of the coordindate system to flow into the black hole - that way we are both happy & the energy field is being treated in the same way as normal mass/energy?

 

There is no problem with some non-gravitational field flowing into a back hole - in the sense that you can consider wave solutions that come from far away and pass the event horizon. Such waves get trapped.

 

 

You are still thinking of the energy field as a radiation field made from quanta of energy - it is not, the waves are sub-quantum waves.

Sub-quantum waves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The field is not made of quasi-particles,

Just as a warning, the term quasi-particles (often written quasiparticles) already has a specific meaning in physics. You should avoid using the term out of place. (Not that you seem too worried about doing so in general ;-))

 

 

sub-quantum = small than quanta (quanta are made of such waves: 3D standing waves).

I think you will need to define things more carefully.

 

Right now I have my QFT hat on - quanta are usually understood ad point-particles. So sub-quanta is a bit of a funny term, and for sure not standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main reason we are having trouble agreeing with each other is that the GR wave equations have been interpreted as defining space-time as a variable geometry coordinate system, rather than having a fixed coordinate system and the wave equation defining test particle's motion within that fixed coordinate system.

 

If the coordinate system is fixed, but is filled with a field of variable density that defines the Gravitational potential at each point in space, then our differences melt away.

The coordinate system is not consumed by the BH, and the field with is made of energy waves, just like normal matter, can flow & get consumed by the BH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main reason we are having trouble agreeing with each other is that the GR wave equations have been interpreted as defining space-time as a variable geometry coordinate system...

You mean gravitational waves or waves in general?

 

Either way, the usual thing to do is to consider a fixed background rather than try to solve the full theory.

 

Anyway, I don't quite follow what you mean by variable geometry coordinate system - are you speaking of Cartan's method of moving frames?

 

 

...rather than having a fixed coordinate system and the wave equation defining test particle's motion within that fixed coordinate system.

But that is what one usually does, locally at least.

 

 

If the coordinate system is fixed, but is filled with a field of variable density that defines the Gravitational potential at each point in space, then our differences melt away.

Okay, so you have this field, which we think is a section of a line bundle. Carefully, now does this define the gravitational potential and what is the role of the underlying geometry of space-time. It is sounding like you want to model gravity as a given geometric background - people have tried this for flat space-time for sure - with some extra field on it that is 'not geometric' (in the sense that it is not to do with the Riemannian geometry). This will be harder than it sounds and I think impossible for a field that carries spin-0. You need spin-2 here and so I am sure sections of a line bundle will not be enough.

 

 

 

The coordinate system is not consumed by the BH, and the field with is made of energy waves, just like normal matter, can flow & get consumed by the BH.

No, the field that has a property that we call energy can get trapped behind an event horizon - we are all okay with this.

 

Okay, so no more talk of 'space-time flow', thank goodness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please see my peer-reviewed paper on GJP (see Ref 2 in my post #11 earlier) showing how electron/positron are made from waves.

 

(For some reason my browser won't let me past the link to the paper into my reply - hence the reference to Post #11).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well [latex] G_{\mu\nu}[/latex] is dynamic in terms of curvature. Not of a flow. BY itself with [latex]T_{\mu\nu}=0[/latex]. [latex]G_{\mu\nu}[/latex] approximates [latex]\eta_{\mu\nu}[/latex] which your SR Minkowkii metric.

 

[latex]G_{\mu\nu}[/latex] with the ricci tensor and ricci scalar define the curvature metric. [latex]T_{\mu\nu}[/latex] is where your 4 momentum and 4 vector is detailed.

 

Now if you want say a gravitational wave or a perturbation you can add another tensor [latex]H_{\mu\nu}[/latex]

 

The gravitational wave equations detail this. However gravitational waves dont have the water wave dynamics.

 

The transverse wave is quadrupole. Visualize a rubber ball and compress x plus and minus coordinates while expanding the two y coordinates.

 

Now as for a good explaination of the Schwartzchild metric compared to Newtonian physics this article has an excellent section. Page 342. Of part 2.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 part 2

 

The last article has excellent details on field modelling both relativistic and non.

 

There is even coverage on coupling a scalar field to gravity.

 

To properly model falling particles into a gravity well. You need to work out the geodesic equations. The spacetime geodesic for massive particles the null geodesic for the time time massless particles.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my Ref 1 in Post #11, I define the space-filling field. Essentially it is a field whose density is determined by the (positive rather than negative) Gravitational potential.

Around mass, the field is more dense, which affects waves travelling through it by causing them to propagate more slowly. This is the cause of Gravitational Time Dilation and Gravitational Lensing.

The slowing of waves also causes the standard Gravitational acceleration due to its effects on 3D standing waves (as in my paper in Ref 2) - I have a paper explaining this process on GJP too.

 

The energy of this field is the sum of the energies from all of the quantum particles in the causally connected Universe.

Each quanta is a 3D standing wave that extends to infinity, but with ever diminishing amplitude. The thin halo of energy surrounding each quantum particle is what contributes to the gravitational potential field.


As far as making changes to GR goes, I don't think it changes at all, just that the curvature is interpreted as due to the variable density Gravitational Potential field that I described above.

Except that for the Schwartzchild Metric for Black Holes I need to introduce a term expressing the constant inward flow (as I suggested in Post #38). That is the only change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please see my peer-reviewed paper on GJP (see Ref 2 in my post #11 earlier) showing how electron/positron are made from waves.

That paper is not really of any help... I am quite suprised that you managed to get it published. But then I do not know this journal - maybe that is not a suprise.

 

As far as making changes to GR goes, I don't think it changes at all...

You should show this.

 

...just that the curvature is interpreted as due to the variable density Gravitational Potential field that I described above.

You need to be very clear on this. You mean that we have a flat space-time but the effects to curvature are really due to this 'energy field' or do you mean something else?

 

Except that for the Schwartzchild Metric for Black Holes I need to introduce a term expressing the constant inward flow (as I suggested in Post #38). That is the only change.

But now you do need a non-flat (i.e., the components of the Riemann tensor are not all zero) space-time.

 

This is all a muddle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ajb pretty much covered all main points on your last post. My recommendation study that Schwartzchild metric section and look closely at the geodesic equations. Those are the equations that detail how matter free falls. Thats how you can properly describe infalling matter and radiation.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ajb pretty much covered all main points on your last post.

Thanks...

 

What is also interesting is that it is known that F( R )-gravity theories and gravity theories with other curvature tensors (including quite general ones of higher order in derivatives) are all equivalent to GR + matter. This matter maybe exotic but still. The general thought right now is that modifying GR 'geometrically' is not going to explain dark matter or dark energy- any such theory is equivalent to GR + 'stuff'.

 

 

I have uploaded the cause of gravitational acceleration paper:

I noticed only two references and these are to your own work? Not really what we expect in science - sorry.

 

How did you get any of this published? Let me guess, fees were involved?

Edited by ajb
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.