Equation for the properties of dark matter

Status
Not open for further replies.
Beaconator

Beaconator

Valued Senior Member
Is there one?

it seems to me that the math always exists before the means we have to discover it.

or is the time spent trying to find an equation a big nothing burger?
 
Orion68 said:
I gave it a try. An equation could be: sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) × Kr = 1. In the formula: x, y, z, are coordinates in spacetime [m], Kr = curvature [m^-1]. Whre the distance is always greater than zero.

An elaboration on this can be found at the webpage https://metric.science/metricscience.php?page=resume
Click to expand...
I do believe that accurately depicts the curvature of space time as it hits every mark at a tangent, yet has no resemblance to how dark matter behaves. Dark matter would take up most of the spaces here you have defined. The acceleration of gravity here does not exist as you have not put in anything resembling the gravitational constant. And your base line includes any type of information moving at light speed, which gravitational objects do not.

your equation and wording predict a static universe which dark matter ignores. Just gravity speed and mass… predict much more complex values. That is not to say you are wrong just needing a little adjustment, because we both know you equation represents the universe much better than dark matter by itself.

you have to include the universal observations not just pure numbers
 
Last edited:
Moderator note: I have moved this thread to the "Alternative theories" subforum since early indications are that the content is a bit 'cranky'. If it turns out that my assessment is wrongv once we have some more posts, I will move it back to the Physics subforum.
 
James R said:
Moderator note: I have moved this thread to the "Alternative theories" subforum since early indications are that the content is a bit 'cranky'. If it turns out that my assessment is wrongv once we have some more posts, I will move it back to the Physics subforum.
Click to expand...

You use the word 'cranky'. What do you mean by that?

Would it be that the reading material is difficult or irritating to deal with. If so, why is the subject moved to the section 'Alternative Theories'?
 
Orion68 said:
You use the word 'cranky'. What do you mean by that?

Would it be that the reading material is difficult or irritating to deal with. If so, why is the subject moved to the section 'Alternative Theories'?
Click to expand...
No it just looks like crank science. The question was about equations for the properties of dark matter. What you have posted doesn't say what property you are talking about and it appears to be dimensionless. How can anyone make sense of that?
 
exchemist said:
No it just looks like crank science. The question was about equations for the properties of dark matter. What you have posted doesn't say what property you are talking about and it appears to be dimensionless. How can anyone make sense of that?
Click to expand...
The equation is explicitely for dark matter. Guess that you don't have enough IQ to truly comprehend what is written otherwise it probably would have made sense .
 
Orion68 said:
The equation is explicitely for dark matter. Guess that you don't have enough IQ to truly comprehend what is written otherwise it probably would have made sense .
Click to expand...
This does not make sense. Nor have you explained what the equation can represent, if it is dimensionless.

Let's try this another way. What's the corresponding "equation for matter", then?
 
I'll repeat myself:

An equation could be: sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) × Kr = 1. In the formula: x, y, z, are coordinates in spacetime [m], Kr = curvature [m^-1]. Where the distance is always greater than zero.

Dark matter is the most basic component of matter in general. A summary is presented as an easy read on https://metric.science/metricscience.php?page=resume

So, any "equation for matter" is a corollary of sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) × Kr = 1.
 
Orion68 said:
I'll repeat myself:

An equation could be: sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) × Kr = 1. In the formula: x, y, z, are coordinates in spacetime [m], Kr = curvature [m^-1]. Where the distance is always greater than zero.

Dark matter is the most basic component of matter in general. A summary is presented as an easy read on https://metric.science/metricscience.php?page=resume

So, any "equation for matter" is a corollary of sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) × Kr = 1.
Click to expand...
This is gibberish, just as James suspected.

Equations in physics need to relate to some property of the entity being modelled, that can at least in principle be observed and measured, whether directly or indirectly. For example, Schrödinger's equation relates to the energy of a QM system. That has meaning because we can observe and measure energy, by the predicted effects of changes in it. The same is true of temperature or momentum or velocity.

But nowhere in physics is there an equation "for stuff", unqualified in any way.
 
exchemist said:
This is gibberish, just as James suspected.

Equations in physics need to relate to some property of the entity being modelled, that can at least in principle be observed and measured, whether directly or indirectly. For example, Schrödinger's equation relates to the energy of a QM system. That has meaning because we can observe and measure energy, by the predicted effects of changes in it. The same is true of temperature or momentum or velocity.

But nowhere in physics is there an equation "for stuff", unqualified in any way.
Click to expand...
It get's boring, if you can't comprehend something then please stop responding with gibberish yourself. For the last time, any "equation for matter" is a corollary of sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) × Kr = 1. Have a good day!
 
Orion68 said:
It get's boring, if you can't comprehend something then please stop responding with gibberish yourself. For the last time, any "equation for matter" is a corollary of sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) × Kr = 1. Have a good day!
Click to expand...
Agreed, it does get boring. But when you find this thread does not go back to the hard science sections, you can book yourself in for an: "I told you so.":D

(It's not just me, you see. It's you.)
 
Since Orion68 isn't interested in discussing his idea, but rather in just presenting it as self-evident fact, this thread is closed.

Also, Orion68's posts read more like an attempt to drive traffic to his own web site than an honest attempt to start a discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top