Anti-Dark Matter

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by joepistole, Nov 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    I'm not a liar. And I will repeat: Einstein wasn't lying when he said "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of the energy". The space between the galaxies expands whilst galaxies don't, and inhomogeneous spatial energy has a mass-equivalence and a gravitational effect. That's no lie, and neither is this: we have no evidence of WIMPs.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    You've got to be kidding. I've referred repeatedly to Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime along with Einstein's Leyden Address where he said this:

    "This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty."

    I've also referred to the Lambda-CDM model which uses the FLRW metric which "starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space". The space between the galaxies expands whilst galaxies don't, and inhomogeneous spatial energy has a mass-equivalence and a gravitational effect. The WIMP hypothesis, which has been going for decades without experimental verification, is built on the wrong assumption.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. prometheus viva voce! Moderator

    Messages:
    2,045
    Farsight: I am fed up of you repeating this fallacy that you have been corrected on at least twice by me and I'm sure many times by others. Have a 3 day ban to hopefully learn some general relativity.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    That's interesting. Are you saying that there are calculations which "prove Farsight wrong"? That's a lot different that just saying that Farsight is a "liar" because his theory isn't fleshed out on a mathematical foundation. The level of deception that you're attributing to him does not square with my opinion of him; if you or Trippy can direct me more specifically to what you're talking about then I can judge Farsight's reaction when I present him with counterexamples.
    Prom, you suspended Farsight for saying that WIMPs don't exist? Are you proclaiming that they DO exist with the same certitude? (please note: I have no opinion on the matter of WIMPs, but I do have an hypocrisy meter whose needle is wiggling a bit)
     
  8. prometheus viva voce! Moderator

    Messages:
    2,045
    Thread cleaned. I have moved some posts to open government (Since the thread was closed the new thread is also closed and I can't open it. Apologies for this - I have put a request in the moderators forum for it to be reopened ASAP).
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2012
  9. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    It might help if I state that I don't really have any issues with using current physics for conceptually analysing stationary objects (stationary at the point of measurement like LHC and cosmological observations).

    My main issue is with the introduction of rotation into conceptual schemas that do not completely take into account the fact that the base model is stationary and leave an incomplete conversion that is interpreted as dark/anti matter/energy.

    There is no prize for pointing out a flaw in the maths/process but there seems to be an industry developing at the moment that is concentrating on gaining prizes for working out just another different way through the maze to prove that anti/dark matter/energy universal expansion etc exists.

    So when I build a bridge from real world foundations and then build the same bridge from the quantum worlds foundations I find that both ends do not match up and the error is out by a factor that is very close to the conversion factor of the reduced Compton wavelength back to its non reduced form.

    Stephen Hawking discussed the conception issue with Roger Penrose (quoted previously in this thread) in their lecture series 'The Nature of Space and Time'.

    Seeing things from both sides there is a huge grey area where the results do not meet the expectations of either the Platonists or the Positivists, especially since the middle of the bridge is not in the quantum world but is actually the changeover point and dark/anti matter energy is clearly a denizen of the quantum world.

    I don't think that any further Nobel prizes should be awarded for new ways to determine anti/dark matter energy and universal expansion calculations until the Platonists and the Positivists can agree on solid foundations for current and future research by building that bridge between them.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2012
  10. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Empirical evidence says dark matter, and an accelerating universe exist as real natural phenomena. That's the bridge. Hawking's assessment of his friend Penrose is a bit tongue in cheek. Pretty sure he doesn't believe the cat is both dead and alive at the same time.
     
  11. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    Within 90 degrees of reality

    Brucep, but if he doesn't care how he used a subjective scientific process to get to his objective answer then scrutiny should be put on the method(s) because they are not transparent and rely on a set of equations for relative mass not rest mass i.e. the other side not the center of the bridge, the border crossing changeover point.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-slit_spectroscopy

    The glancing incident lensing structure of x-ray spectroscopy is closer to the Long Slit spectroscopy lensing structure and it clearly provides local doppler not universal doppler images. The only difference is that the x-ray slit is long and spiral shaped. If anybody actually wants to look into these discrepancies they will see that there is a 90 degree twist in the conception of this mass in calculations based on galactic rotation and anti/dark matter/energy.

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

     
  12. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I'm not sure what you're getting at. The cold dark matter has been observed using weak lensing derived from GR. You have the metric [FLWR] and a bunch of corroborated measurements from WMAP, Supernova Cosmology Project, gravitational lensing, large scale structure supporting the Lambda-CDM model of Cosmology. So which measurements are questionable in your view? When it comes to science you have theoretical predictions and empirical measurements supporting the predictions or falsifying the predictions. I agree with Hawking. We can form a consensus on what's real natural phenomena after the scientists finish their work.
     
  13. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Calling Prom a hypocrite when you don't even know why Farsight was banned?
    About the gravitational self energy that Farsight believes would sum to the baryonic matter and explain galaxy rotation curves without conjuring up dark matter.

    Living Reviews of Relativity
    http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-5&page=articlesu4.html
     
  14. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
  15. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    Brucep, there are much cheaper and more fun ways to experimentally determine if you do actually capture different amounts of light from different speeds of rotation of the same galactic source from first principles. Let me know if you have any difficulty understanding this experiment and the results.

    (1) The following sparkler experiment is very simple and inexpensive way to work out if the amount of light captured from any rotating source over a fixed period of time is the same regardless of how fast that source is rotating.

    If I started photographing a sparkler around 6 and a bit feet away, the sparkler was rotating in a circle 2 feet in diameter and I captured the light from the spinning sparkler in one complete circle the ratio ( A ) of the time between the rotating source and the observer over the diameter of rotation would be roughly equal to Pi.
    In this case the ratio ( B ) of the actual distance between source and observer over the distance travelled by light in a year would be very small and the ratio ( C ) of the observation period over the time it takes for the sparkler to be rotated once will equal one. All observations should have a width of field that covers the complete diameter of rotation of the source being observed.

    If I halve the exposure period I get half a circle and capture half as much light and when I double the exposure period I get 2 circles over each other and twice as much light in my photograph. If the sparkler is rotated twice as fast I would expect something that looked similar to when I doubled the exposure period but I would also expect to capture the same amount of light from only one rotation despite the doubling of the speed of rotation. If I taped two sparklers together I could halve the exposure time and double the speed of rotation to capture a similar amount of light from 1 sparkler doing 1 complete rotation. If the sparkler was moved at an angle to me I would observe an oval instead of a circle but the amount of light captured would remain the same as for a complete circle.

    A primary school science teacher could put together an experiment with a cheap digital camera with a timer and a pack of sparklers. Torches could be used if sparklers were WHS and the images could be uploaded to a PC/laptop for comparison purposes.

    (2) In this simplest base context A = Pi, B = tiny, C = 1 and the observer will capture one complete cycle. On any scale where C >= 1 the observer will capture at least one complete cycle despite the size of B.

    On any scale where A = Pi * x, B >= 1 and C < 1 the observer will only capture the light from B * C = x of one rotation during any observation regardless of the speed of rotation of the same object.

    On a galactic year scale where A = Pi * x, B = 230 million and C = 1/230 million you would expect to capture the light from B * C = x rotations or roughly one rotation regardless of the speed of rotation.

    On a galactic year scale where A = Pi * x, B = 4.2 billion and C = 1/4.2 billion you would expect to capture the light from B * C = x rotations or roughly one rotation.

    (3) If you begin to wonder what you would expect to capture you can model the paths of light travelling from a rotating source over one galactic years distance with respect to the rotation of the source, this image http://scienceforums.com/index.php?...=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=3232 shows what you would expect to see on galactic year scales.

    These light paths are composed of straight lines that curve and the only mass/gravity required to create this curve is the mass/gravity that allows the sources to continue to rotate and emit locally. No mass/gravity intervened between the source and the observer and the observer was 'stationary' at the point of capture of the light for the discrete period of the capture.

    The speed of the photons is always c and both source and observer are connected by a curved light path during the discrete period of the observation as long as the source continues to emit and is not blocked.
     
  16. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Sorry not interested in your bs.
     
  17. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Without any units, that makes absolutely no sense. With units, it would be false in general.
     
  18. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Old news. This study had methodological problems. It tried something new, got a bogus answer, and had to wait for later work to point out the problem. It didn't take very long.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4033
    Jo Bovy and Scott Tremaine "On the local dark matter density" Astrophysical Journal 756:1, 89 (September 1, 2012)
    I won't risk having this post held in moderation for excessive linkage, but if you google for all four names : Moni, Bidin, Bovy, Tremaine then you will find many popular science articles on the paper.
     
  19. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    PhysBang, Pi is fascinating because when derived from distances or time, it becomes a dimensionless constant.
     
  20. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    And if you actually look at the differences between the two papers you will see that you do not see 'dark' matter if you use a consistent center of galactic rotation and an average speed of rotation but you do see 'dark' matter when you substitute an axis of galactic rotation and use non average speeds of rotation.
     
  21. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    You seem to be objecting to the reality-based assumption that the stars in the galactic disk have flat rotation curves and don't move in Kepler orbits about a central mass. I choose, when reporting on science, to embrace this "reality" thing that you have such a hard time with.
     
  22. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Except you are moving from dimension to dimensionless. That's bad math.
     
  23. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    Hi rpenner,

    Thats a good twist but the spin is not surprising. Have you done the local 'reality based' experiment and did you get a circle?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page