A Different Hypothesis in Regard to Dark Matter and Dark Energy

The fact that stars and planetary systems in our galaxy seem to be travelling at velocities higher than can be presently explained by the observed mass in the Milky way has led to the prevailing theory that there is some kind of “Dark Matter” which has not or cannot be observed by our present detection devices. In fact, it is thought that this “Dark Matter” is more than 90% of the mass in our universe.


In addition, the fact that galaxies are presently accelerating away from each other has had a similar explanation in that there must be some “Dark Energy” which again has not or cannot be observed by our present detection devices.


I would like to offer a different hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that what we are trying to explain as some unseen or unseeable matter or energy is in reality no more than the gravitational effects generated by mass moving through space, and in particular when it is confined into a circular motion. Very similar to how magnetism is generated by the motion of electrons when confined to an electro-magnet.


This discussion is not an attempt to derive a definitive proof of my hypothesis, but to show there is sufficient plausibility to warrant further study. In this light the following are some of the assumptions that I will be using:


1. A gravitational force is generated due to the rotation of a mass

2. The gravitational force perpendicular to the rotation of the mass is attractive.

This force varies with the inverse of the distance from the rotating object rather than with the inverse of the square of the distance as is the case with the normal Newtonian gravitational force. An argument Is made for this in the section entitled, Explanation of why Rotational gravitational force varies in a different manner with its distance from it’s source than normal Newtonian Gravity (See my blog at "www.hohtdoak.com" under the page

"A Different Hypothesis in Regard to Dark Matter and Dark Energy"


3. The gravitational force parallel to the rotation of the mass is repulsive.

4. The formula for this rotational gravitational force presumed to be:

Fai = Ci*M*m*V2/R

Where:

Fai = Attractive rotational force

Ci = constant

M = mass of central core of galaxy

V = rotational velocity of the surface of the central core

R = Distance of another mass (star system) from the central core.

m = mass of distant object (star system).

5. An approximation of the velocity of the mass at the center of the milky way can be determined by the following formula:


Vs =(C* Vbh2*Rbh2 / Rp)^.5


Where:

C = constant = 6.5 x 10-5

Vbh = Rotational velocity at surface of the center of the Milky Way

Rbh = Radius of center of Milky Way

Vs = Velocity of solar system around Milky Way

Rp = Distance of solar system from center of Milky Way


Although this equation works quite well within the solar system it certainly is reasonable to question its validity in the galaxy. However, it seems to give an answer within the order of magnitude of observed data.

6. For simplicity’s sake I’ve chosen to use the Newtonian formula for gravitation force as opposed to Kepler’s more accurate description of planetary motion.



Using these assumptions it is believed to be possible to explain the phenomena presently being credited to some dark matter and dark energy.


Further it can be used to give an explanation of the following observed data of velocity of star systems around the Milky Way versus their distance from the center of the galaxy.

Explaining the Observed velocity data of star systems traversing the Milky Way


Graph of Orbiting Star Systems in the Milky Way vs Their Distance from the Center of the Galaxy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The explanation of the above graph is as follows:


Why is the velocity curve flat at a certain distance out from the center of the galaxy?

The velocity of star systems remains flat due to the fact that the rotational gravity force at a certain distance out is greater than the Newtonian gravity force and since it varies with 1/R rather than 1/R2 it would be expected that objects further out would maintain a constant rotational velocity.


Why does the velocity curve drop off so sharply as one approaches the center of the galaxy?

It is suspected that what happens here is that the density of the stars and thus the mass density becomes sufficient such that the interplay of their mutual gravitation forces them to move in lock step. Thus their angular orbital velocity becomes fixed and thus their actual velocity varies directly with their distance from the center of the galaxy. Thus if you look at the curve you can see that at four (4) light years the velocity is approximately 245 km/sec. Thus one would expect that at one and one half (1 ½) light years (last measured point on graph) that the velocity would be approximately 92 km/sec. This seems like a very good approximation of what is observed. This would eventually breakdown as the star systems approach the center of the galaxy (perhaps close to the event horizon) and everything would then tend to speed up.


Why is the universe continuing to expand at an accelerating rate?

The answer to this is the possible repulsive gravitational force emanating from the axial direction of the rotating black holes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Firstly we have reasonable solid evidence for DM.
DE is another matter, that could be Einstein's CC.
And you are in the wrong section mate. We do have an alternative theory section.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

should be moved to alternative theories forum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

''1. A gravitational force is generated due to the rotation of a mass''
I will just stop you at number 1, a gravitational field is not the result of the rotation of mass, mass is attracted to mass without any rotational motion.

and 2.

''2. The gravitational force perpendicular to the rotation of the mass is attractive.''

The gravitational force of mass is isotropic and has nothing to do with rotation of the mass.

 

Usually "ugly facts" don't destroy a "beautiful theory" so fast, easily and so completely.
Perhaps you don't know a low earth orbiting satellite circles the Earth IN A CIRCULAR ORBIT in about 90 minutes even in a "polar orbit"?

Welcome to Sciforum - I hope your here to learn and not to preach.

 

A 1/r dependent gravitational force is one that is greater than a 1/r^2 gravitational force.

You would need to justify that. For one thing, spinning in place would mean gravity on the surface would become much greater. It doesn't. Why not?

 

Unfortunately the evidence directly counters your conjecture.

 

From the calculations I have made I find that this proposed spinning gravitational force only becomes apparent at extremely high masses and velocities approaching that of light. Anything that we would observe on a day to day basis or even in our own solar system would be so small that we would have great difficulty measuring them. Again I'm suggesting that the rotational gravitational force only becomes equal to or greater than the regular gravitational forces at some point due to the fact that normal Newtonian gravitational forces fall off quicker. My very crude calculation of this suggests that this point is somewhere around 1000 ly. Could I be wrong? absolutely maybe even probably. However, I haven't heard an argument that convinces me otherwise.

 

Rotational gravitational force does not exist, that is the only argument needed that you should need to convince you. All objects are attracted to objects by their masses, no rotational force needed , please see link provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

 

Also see this link please -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force

 

It is really easy to make meaningless equations fit whatever you want when you just arbitrarily make up constants.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hello Origin


Thanks for taking the time to comment on my hypothesis.


Let me offer another way of looking at the same information that I’ve presented that might be insightful.


We are all familiar with Newton’s equation for gravity: F = GMm/r2

And for the most part we’ve assumed that mass is the key component to creating what we experience as gravity. Let me propose an alternate thought. Let’s suppose that it is not the mass that is important, but the energy contained therein. We know of the equivalence of mass and energy proposed by Einstein. I could therefore rewrite Newton’s equation as follows:


F = (G/c 2)(Mc 2)m/r 2

Well you could argue what has changed the velocity of light just cancels out and we are back to where we started. I suggest that there is a difference here as it opens up to the possibility of other forms of energy also impacting gravity. Of particular interest to me is the energy kinetically stored in a rotating mass. In normal day to day course of events this energy is so small as to be insignificant, but not so at the core of the galaxy and rotation speeds approaching that of light.

When I did the original calculations for a constant in regard to the effect of a rotating mass on gravity I assumed a mass in the proximity of 1E39 and a rotational velocity of 6.5 % of the speed of light. I knew at the time that these were probably not accurate as there are conflicting opinions as to the mass and rotational velocity at the core of the Milky Way.


If I assume a more conservative approach were M at the center of the Milky Way is in the order of 0.5% the speed of light. And I also assume that the density of the rotational gravitational force is proportional to 1/(πDr) I can rewrite my equation for the rotational gravitational force as follows:


F = (G/(c2πD)*(Mv2 )m/r


Where

C = velocity of light

G = gravitational constant

D = length of axis of rotating mass

(Mv2 ) = kinetic energy of rotating mass


As you can see there is no need to invent a new constant.

 

Just to play a little devil's advocate in support of the OP's basic idea (not the assumptions). Doesn't travelling through space increase one's mass? Sure, not to a significant degree until reaching relativistic speeds (as observed to date), but there IS a connection between distance/time/mass/gravity that isn't fully understood. Maybe visible matter has an effect on space-time that only (measurably) occurs with extreme mass spread over immense distances? Something that wouldn't require "dark matter" to explain.

 

EXACTLY my point! You know the answer you want so you make up a constant that ensures you get the answer you want.

The made up term:
rotational gravitational force

You then gave your made up term this made up value:
1/(πDr)

Thus ensuring that you get the 1/r relationship you want.

It is obvious, just give it a rest.

 

Hello Somniantis


Thanks for your open mindedness. It is this willingness to challenge the present prevailing theory of how things work that has led to the important breakthroughs of the past.

It may very well be that my reasoning is flawed and that I haven’t presented it according to the present paradigm of how the universe works, but this doesn’t mean that it is not true.

The theory and the equations just correspond so well to the phenomena presently being explained by Dark Matter and Dark energy to be just a mere coincidence. It is highly arrogant (having given very little thought) to just dismiss everything as having no merit.

I have taken this as far as I intend to. I pass the challenge to you and to anyone else who may be following this thread to consider what I have said in greater depth and perhaps take our understanding of how the universe works to a much higher level of understanding.

It reminds me of an imaginary conversation between Einstein and Newton. It begins with Einstein saying to Newton; “You know Isaac you have it all wrong, two masses don’t attract each other it is really about the warping of space and time”. Newton ponders this for a while and replys; “You may be right Albert, but my equation still works”.

 

Interesting you did not mention that until my observation that 90 minute satellite orbiting over the poles has a circular orbit; but now you are suggesting we can't observe the small effects. I.e. no point to your undetectable posutulated with no evidence theory.

We have now much greater sensitive instruments than were used to explore gravity >200 years ago but they were very sensitive:

Cavendish published his results in 1798!

SUMMARY: Not only do not have any supporting evidence when "Extraordinary Evidence" is required to refute General Relativity's well confirmed view of Gravity, you don't even have a good "cop-out" to reject the 90 minute satellite orbit's disproof of you idea,* but at least you say you are dropping the idea for others to follow up on - don't hold your breath waiting for any one to.

* Note quite small variations in local gravity have been measured by satellites in the last few years. E.g. they have measured how much ground water has been extracted to meet California's water demands! Don't you think your tiny effect, which would be uniform and accumulating would have been observed, if it existed

 

We know that the Higgs mechanism imparts inertial mass. We also understand that the principle of equivalence assures, inertial and gravitational masses are the same to a very high degree of accuracy.

The Higgs boson has mass (quite a lot) and interacts with matter even more energetically than, say, photons, which are massless.

The Higgs derives of vacuum energy. The vacuum has mass. There's your dark matter. There's your extra mass and gravity. That is why a stone knows which direction to fall without knowing anything about math or Riemann tensors. Spooky action at a distance is finally vanquished. It does not derive entirely from mass constituted of matter. Any questions?

And, yeah, it would be more easily observable on galactic scales than planetary ones. But the idea is just a bit harder to do geometry on.

 

Hello I have being thinking and considering your idea, I now can show you your error in your logic when considering ''rotational gravity force''.

The Earth does not maintain a constant speed of the rotation, according to your idea when the speed of the Earth fluctuates, that all objects will change in Newtons of force.
This is not the case, we do not change weight by a change in the speed of the rotation of Earth. Therefore your idea can not be valued.

 

Hello danshawen

Your remarks in regard to the Higgs mechanism is certainly valid and is a possible answer to the issue of dark matter. In regards to the earth however, and its rotational effect this would not be observed to have any impact as the forces I am talking about would only be observable at masses and velocities occurring in the vicinity of a black hole. In my calculations there would be no observable effect in any part of our solar system. Even the mass and rotational velocity of our sun would not generate a significant rotational gravitational effect on any of our planets. I think one way that my theory might be tested is to find another galaxy which has a significantly different mass at its center than our Milky Way and a higher or lower rotational velocity and (if we have the data) calculate if my formula predicts the rotational velocity of the star systems that are a significant distance from the center.

 

If the data is available then the formula I suggest using is as follows:

Fai = (G/(c2 *π*D))*(M V2)*m /R

Where:

G = Newton’s gravitational constant

c = velocity of light

(M V2) = kinetic energy of the rotating mass

D = length of the axis of the rotating mass.

V = rotational velocity of the surface of the central core

R = Distance of another mass (star system) from the central core.

m = mass of distant object (star system).