Dark matter. Or misbehaving gravity? Or What?

[Mountainmike]

Time for a different topic.

So gravity doesn’t behave. Or matter. Take your pick. But what’s your thoughts on why?

1/ Start with what must be the baseline. That gravity is an empirical model and it works “ ok “ in our vicinity. But the model just isn’t that good. Even measurements of G vary. Maybe it’s just piecewise square law in what should have a lot more terms.

2/ the often assumed WIMPS . A big distribution of small but none interacting mass to make the sums add up again. Which they don’t on remote galaxy shapes. It maybe convenient as a bandaid. There’s no evidence of them! One past conjecture is the crazy sounding notion that even free empty space has matter or energy….

3/ or maybe it’s big lumps of stuff we can’t see. Lots of small Black holes or such like. Trouble is black holes do interact…

4/ or maybe it’s gravity cannot be modelled in isolation. After all the measurements are not consistent. Maybe magnetic ( or electric fields ) change the perception of gravity. That interaction gives hope for ufo engines that bend space rather than travel through it! Since stars have a lot of magnetism it would throw sums out of kilter.

5/ or maybe G ( like C) maybe reasonably constant in our epoch, but it’s not been constant in history. So the imbalance is not an imbalance just a view of a mixture of time…

6/ maybe we just are not that good at measuring mass in the universe

First, is that list complete? Have I missed any? It’s a while since I looked.

Second who has strong views on it. The baseline has to be 1/, that it’s just an empirical model like ohms, so not surprising it doesn’t work everywhere.
4/ is the most fascinating because of the potential to use it.

 

[SelfSim]

4/ or maybe it’s gravity cannot be modelled in isolation. After all the measurements are not consistent. Maybe magnetic ( or electric fields ) change the perception of gravity. That interaction gives hope for ufo engines that bend space rather than travel through it! Since stars have a lot of magnetism it would throw sums out of kilter.
..
Second who has strong views on it.
..
4/ is the most fascinating because of the potential to use it.

I have strong views that your 4/ is completely bogus gobbledygook. References please?

 

[Neogaia777]

Time for a different topic.

So gravity doesn’t behave. Or matter. Take your pick. But what’s your thoughts on why?

1/ Start with what must be the baseline. That gravity is an empirical model and it works “ ok “ in our vicinity. But the model just isn’t that good. Even measurements of G vary. Maybe it’s just piecewise square law in what should have a lot more terms.

2/ the often assumed WIMPS . A big distribution of small but none interacting mass to make the sums add up again. Which they don’t on remote galaxy shapes. It maybe convenient as a bandaid. There’s no evidence of them! One past conjecture is the crazy sounding notion that even free empty space has matter or energy….

3/ or maybe it’s big lumps of stuff we can’t see. Lots of small Black holes or such like. Trouble is black holes do interact…

4/ or maybe it’s gravity cannot be modelled in isolation. After all the measurements are not consistent. Maybe magnetic ( or electric fields ) change the perception of gravity. That interaction gives hope for ufo engines that bend space rather than travel through it! Since stars have a lot of magnetism it would throw sums out of kilter.

5/ or maybe G ( like C) maybe reasonably constant in our epoch, but it’s not been constant in history. So the imbalance is not an imbalance just a view of a mixture of time…

6/ maybe we just are not that good at measuring mass in the universe

First, is that list complete? Have I missed any? It’s a while since I looked.

Second who has strong views on it. The baseline has to be 1/, that it’s just an empirical model like ohms, so not surprising it doesn’t work everywhere.
4/ is the most fascinating because of the potential to use it.

It is my opinion that normal matter attracts, and that other matter, or dark matter, pushes outward, or off of one another, or normal matter, and kind of acts counter to it, etc, but I don't know if I am right, etc, but if I am, it would fit perfectly with a few other theories or ideas that I have, etc...?

I need to do more research yet to see if it truly behaves that way yet, etc...

It's "on my list", etc, and I will get to it when I can get to it, etc...

Because it's a long list, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

It is my opinion that normal matter attracts, and that other matter, or dark matter, pushes outward, or off of one another, or normal matter, and kind of acts counter to it, etc, but I don't know if I am right, etc, but if I am, it would fit perfectly with a few other theories or ideas that I have, etc...?

I need to do more research yet to see if it truly behaves that way yet, etc...

It's "on my list", etc, and I will get to it when I can get to it, etc...

Because it's a long list, etc...

God Bless!

Or rather maybe it is more better said that normal matter creates a gravitational "sink" in the fabric of space-time, whereas other matter does just the exact opposite, etc, but I don't know that for sure yet, about the latter I mean, and will need to do more research and learn more before I can or could tell you that for sure yet, etc...

It's on my list, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Gene2memE]

1/ Start with what must be the baseline. That gravity is an empirical model and it works “ ok “ in our vicinity. But the model just isn’t that good. Even measurements of G vary.

Measurements of the gravitational constant vary by around 0.00001%. And, they do so in a predictable way (we know that some of that is caused by external anomalies, and the variability happens in a regular cycle).

 

[Mountainmike]

Measurements of the gravitational constant vary by around 0.00001%. And, they do so in a predictable way (we know that some of that is caused by external anomalies, and the variability happens in a regular cycle).

It’s far bigger than that. At least 0.1% And that’s only in our locale.
https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html

We cannot know if the value variation is much bigger elsewhere. Or indeed if G measured elsewhere in the universe is the same. Is it just a local value we measure that works pretty well in our locale? It’s empirical so who knows?

I have strong views that your 4/ is completely bogus gobbledygook. References please?

If you mean lack of direct evidence true. You are welcome to your opinion. There have been papers which explored the conjecture.

But then the cycle is half that of the sunspot cycle which IS magnetic. That is indirect plausibility evidence.

Do I believe it?
No idea the jury is out. Its as good as any other idea when most of the mass or G is missing. There is a serious big problem, and blue sky thinking is needed.

Once in a while the idea pops up.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2814-earths-magnetic-field-boosts-gravity/

Gravitational-magnetic-electric field interaction - ScienceDirect

I’ve also witnessed a ufo. It was a clear night with unobscured views in the early hours when I was sat out. A light Which glided slowly over a period of five minutes in a straight line on one side : I made the assumption airliner. Then it did a right angle turn and shot off beyond the far horizon in less than two seconds. Completely silent. Others in the area witnessed it. It made the local press. But like most of these things was then ignored. Whatever propelled it is not of our science. Even US military owns up to the idea such things exist. How did it move?

 

[Neogaia777]

It is my opinion that normal matter attracts, and that other matter, or dark matter, pushes outward, or off of one another, or normal matter, and kind of acts counter to it, etc, but I don't know if I am right, etc, but if I am, it would fit perfectly with a few other theories or ideas that I have, etc...?

I need to do more research yet to see if it truly behaves that way yet, etc...

It's "on my list", etc, and I will get to it when I can get to it, etc...

Because it's a long list, etc...

God Bless!

Or rather maybe it is more better said that normal matter creates a gravitational "sink" in the fabric of space-time, whereas other matter does just the exact opposite, etc, but I don't know that for sure yet, about the latter I mean, and will need to do more research and learn more before I can or could tell you that for sure yet, etc...

It's on my list, etc...

God Bless!

And if I am correct about any of this, then it results in the "dance" that we see that ensues, etc...

But, I will have to look into it more, and maybe even a lot more, and get back to you, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

And if I am correct about any of this, then it results in the "dance" that we see that ensues, etc...

But, I will have to look into it more, and maybe even a lot more, and get back to you, etc...

God Bless!

So, I was just poking around on the web, as I was kind of "bored", etc, and can't sleep right now, etc, and I was doing some google searches, etc, and I ran across a page that said one of the mysteries of the dark matter "force" is that, at least on the scale of between more immediate galaxies, etc, is that it sometimes seemed to pull on them, or hold them together, or pulled or drew them toward one another, and then also sometimes at times also, also seemed to push them apart or away from one another also, etc, but it is my theory and/or belief that "that" is only because, on much larger scales than just only that only, it is all being pushed out on only equally from everywhere equally everywhere, etc, but that normal gravity, is also kind of holding it all together also, and is kind of also moving around all of that also, etc...

I will need some time to do some more research though...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

So, I was just poking around on the web, as I was kind of "bored", etc, and can't sleep right now, etc, and I was doing some google searches, etc, and I ran across a page that said one of the mysteries of the dark matter "force" is that, at least on the scale of between more immediate galaxies, etc, is that it sometimes seemed to pull on them, or hold them together, or pulled or drew them toward one another, and then also sometimes at times also, also seemed to push them apart or away from one another also, etc, but it is my theory and/or belief that "that" is only because, on much larger scales than just only that only, it is all being pushed out on only equally from everywhere equally everywhere, etc, but that normal gravity, is also kind of holding it all together also, and is kind of also moving around all of that also, etc...

I will need some time to do some more research though...

God Bless!

The dark matter "force" is pushing outward on everything, but in just the space between galaxies, sometimes it is far too weak to overcome or counteract the forces that are pushing out on all of it on the much larger scales universally, etc...

And then also normal gravity has or plays its part in all of this as well also, etc...

Anyway, I will look into it more and get back to you, ok...

God Bless!

 

[Halbhh]

Time for a different topic.

So gravity doesn’t behave. Or matter. Take your pick. But what’s your thoughts on why?

1/ Start with what must be the baseline. That gravity is an empirical model and it works “ ok “ in our vicinity. But the model just isn’t that good. Even measurements of G vary. Maybe it’s just piecewise square law in what should have a lot more terms.

2/ the often assumed WIMPS . A big distribution of small but none interacting mass to make the sums add up again. Which they don’t on remote galaxy shapes. It maybe convenient as a bandaid. There’s no evidence of them! One past conjecture is the crazy sounding notion that even free empty space has matter or energy….

3/ or maybe it’s big lumps of stuff we can’t see. Lots of small Black holes or such like. Trouble is black holes do interact…

4/ or maybe it’s gravity cannot be modelled in isolation. After all the measurements are not consistent. Maybe magnetic ( or electric fields ) change the perception of gravity. That interaction gives hope for ufo engines that bend space rather than travel through it! Since stars have a lot of magnetism it would throw sums out of kilter.

5/ or maybe G ( like C) maybe reasonably constant in our epoch, but it’s not been constant in history. So the imbalance is not an imbalance just a view of a mixture of time…

6/ maybe we just are not that good at measuring mass in the universe

First, is that list complete? Have I missed any? It’s a while since I looked.

Second who has strong views on it. The baseline has to be 1/, that it’s just an empirical model like ohms, so not surprising it doesn’t work everywhere.
4/ is the most fascinating because of the potential to use it.

On #6, I'd add "so far" or "to date". Physicists are working in many places with many detectors to try to learn more about neutrinos, which are challenging to detect in some theorized varieties. There might be a sort which are the bulk of dark matter is one idea.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Time for a different topic.

So gravity doesn’t behave. Or matter. Take your pick. But what’s your thoughts on why?

1/ Start with what must be the baseline. That gravity is an empirical model and it works “ ok “ in our vicinity. But the model just isn’t that good. Even measurements of G vary. Maybe it’s just piecewise square law in what should have a lot more terms.

2/ the often assumed WIMPS . A big distribution of small but none interacting mass to make the sums add up again. Which they don’t on remote galaxy shapes. It maybe convenient as a bandaid. There’s no evidence of them! One past conjecture is the crazy sounding notion that even free empty space has matter or energy….

3/ or maybe it’s big lumps of stuff we can’t see. Lots of small Black holes or such like. Trouble is black holes do interact…

4/ or maybe it’s gravity cannot be modelled in isolation. After all the measurements are not consistent. Maybe magnetic ( or electric fields ) change the perception of gravity. That interaction gives hope for ufo engines that bend space rather than travel through it! Since stars have a lot of magnetism it would throw sums out of kilter.

5/ or maybe G ( like C) maybe reasonably constant in our epoch, but it’s not been constant in history. So the imbalance is not an imbalance just a view of a mixture of time…

6/ maybe we just are not that good at measuring mass in the universe

First, is that list complete? Have I missed any? It’s a while since I looked.

Second who has strong views on it. The baseline has to be 1/, that it’s just an empirical model like ohms, so not surprising it doesn’t work everywhere.
4/ is the most fascinating because of the potential to use it.

The reality is that no one knows. It's not even certain that dark matter and dark energy actually exist. The desperate and incredibly expensive research has come up empty. God shrouds many things in mystery. The great mystery to me is why so much research is of no practical use when there are so many chronic problems to solve.

 

[Halbhh]

The reality is that no one knows. It's not even certain that dark matter and dark energy actually exist. The desperate and incredibly expensive research has come up empty. God shrouds many things in mystery. The great mystery to me is why so much research is of no practical use when there are so many chronic problems to solve.

Don't let anyone tell you science is against God. God made Nature, and science is merely the attempt to understand Nature. Science is part of what God created.

Basic research, 'pure science', over and over has led to new technologies that help us a lot in our everyday lives.

Just one example: the modern GPS navigation (like on your phone or in your car) that people use to navigate relies on Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Without General Relativity, we'd not have sufficiently accurate GPS navigation to be of use.

When you use a computer, you are using the result of a lot of basic science research discoveries over more than a century.

 

[Petros2015]

5/ or maybe G ( like C) maybe reasonably constant in our epoch, but it’s not been constant in history. So the imbalance is not an imbalance just a view of a mixture of time…

"I think it's got something to do with free will." ~The Supreme Being, Time-Bandits

Take a look at this from 4:44:

But...
The loaf of bread they are using is Static.
Our real loaf of bread is expanding. And actually accelerating in it's expansion.
So... what does that mean?

It means that the alien on the bicycle can Never bike toward the guy on the park bench.
And that means... the future doesn't already exist in the predetermined fashion it is presented in in the vid.

I think it would be kind of cool if the expansion was driven by the existence of free will instead of just allowing for it. But that's my theory; that's why the models are off and why the expansion is accelerating.

 

[Hans Blaster]

OK, I'll bite...

Time for a different topic.

So gravity doesn’t behave. Or matter. Take your pick. But what’s your thoughts on why?

I don't see any reason to think either is "misbehaving".

1/ Start with what must be the baseline. That gravity is an empirical model and it works “ ok “ in our vicinity. But the model just isn’t that good. Even measurements of G vary. Maybe it’s just piecewise square law in what should have a lot more terms.

This is basically MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics). I'm not fond of MOND, but it hasn't been ruled out. The extensions are arbitrary and MOND doesn't fit several of the matter-like observations of DM. (It works best on galactic rotation curves.) Integration of this idea in to GR is tricky.

2/ the often assumed WIMPS . A big distribution of small but none interacting mass to make the sums add up again. Which they don’t on remote galaxy shapes. It maybe convenient as a bandaid. There’s no evidence of them! One past conjecture is the crazy sounding notion that even free empty space has matter or energy….

WIMPs (I should note that the MP is "massive particle") are one type of particle dark matter. Another is axions. My personal favorite is sexaquarks which don't require any new physics.

3/ or maybe it’s big lumps of stuff we can’t see. Lots of small Black holes or such like. Trouble is black holes do interact…

This was ruled out in the 90s by microlensing surveys like MACHO and OGLE.

4/ or maybe it’s gravity cannot be modelled in isolation. After all the measurements are not consistent. Maybe magnetic ( or electric fields ) change the perception of gravity. That interaction gives hope for ufo engines that bend space rather than travel through it! Since stars have a lot of magnetism it would throw sums out of kilter.

If the EM force was coupled strongly enough to gravity to affect measurements of gravity it should be detected in laboratory experiments. (It is not.) The best way to measure the masses of individual stars is by interaction with a binary partner. The magnetic field strengths of the stars can be measured and from them the tiny impact of the magnetic field on orbit is demonstrated.

5/ or maybe G ( like C) maybe reasonably constant in our epoch, but it’s not been constant in history. So the imbalance is not an imbalance just a view of a mixture of time…

Perhaps a cosmology that had the DM effect on the evolution of the Universe mocked up by variation in G or c could be constructed, but most of what we know about DM comes from things that are local to us, or variations confined within a gravitationally bound system. A variable c/G DM model will never explain galactic rotation curves or the masses of galaxy clusters.

6/ maybe we just are not that good at measuring mass in the universe

Yes and no. Measuring mass can be tricky, but there is 5x more DM than regular matter so the undercount in regular matter would have to be huge. Gasses are typically optically thin (intercluster gas in X-rays, molecular clouds with radio measurements) so all you really need is to know how much light was emitted and you have the mass. (That requires translating the detector measurements into emission by geometric dilution, so the distance is important.) For stars things are a bit more complicated as the mass-to-light ratio (M/L) depends of the population of stars in a galaxy, but that can be determined by spectroscopy.

[We can also add in that the limits on the baryon-to-photon ratio during BBN also limits the amount of "regular" (or baryonic) matter in the Universe and it matches the number gotten through DM:Baryonic.]

First, is that list complete? Have I missed any? It’s a while since I looked.

Second who has strong views on it. The baseline has to be 1/, that it’s just an empirical model like ohms, so not surprising it doesn’t work everywhere.
4/ is the most fascinating because of the potential to use it.

I think your list is complete (assuming by 1 you were thinking of MOND).

DM is either modified gravity or poorly interacting particles (or both). None of the other options are viable.

 

[Petros2015]

My personal favorite is sexaquarks which don't require any new physics.

Well, yeah if you practice Yoga maybe!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, yeah if you practice Yoga maybe!

Oddball sexaquark particles could be immortal, if they exist at all

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.08951.pdf

 

[SelfSim]

Do I believe it?
No idea the jury is out. Its as good as any other idea when most of the mass or G is missing. There is a serious big problem, and blue sky thinking is needed.

Oh bruvva!

I’ve also witnessed a ufo. ..
Whatever propelled it is not of our science.
.. How did it move?

If you don't know how it moved, then how do you know 'whatever propelled it is not of our science'?
.. Pathetic reasoning from a self-professed so-called 'scientist'!

 

[Gene2memE]

It’s far bigger than that. At least 0.1% And that’s only in our locale.
https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html

*Thinks to self: Did he not read the paper at his link, or not understand it?*

"The official value of G is 6.673889 × 10−11 N·(m/kg)2, but the 13 measurement values analyzed in this study range from approximately 6.672 × 10−11 N·(m/kg)2 to 6.675 × 10−11 N·(m/kg)2, which is a percentage variation of about 10-4."

What do you think 10 to the power of negative four is? Here's a hint, it's not 0.1%.

We cannot know if the value variation is much bigger elsewhere. Or indeed if G measured elsewhere in the universe is the same. Is it just a local value we measure that works pretty well in our locale? It’s empirical so who knows?

We also cannot know if the value variation is much smaller elsewhere.

Do we have any reason to suspect the gravitational constant is different elsewhere in the universe?

There's also a huge difference between the gravitational constant shifting, and our measurements of the gravitational constant shifting.

 

[Mountainmike]

*Thinks to self: Did he not read the paper at his link, or not understand it?*

"The official value of G is 6.673889 × 10−11 N·(m/kg)2, but the 13 measurement values analyzed in this study range from approximately 6.672 × 10−11 N·(m/kg)2 to 6.675 × 10−11 N·(m/kg)2, which is a percentage variation of about 10-4."

What do you think 10 to the power of negative four is? Here's a hint, it's not 0.1%.



We also cannot know if the value variation is much smaller elsewhere.

Do we have any reason to suspect the gravitational constant is different elsewhere in the universe?

There's also a huge difference between the gravitational constant shifting, and our measurements of the gravitational constant shifting.

Thinks to self , did you not read the paper or not understand it?

The error bars show from below 6.671 to 6.676. That’s a RANGE variation observed of at least 5 parts in 6000.

I gave it an ORDER of magnitude that’s 1 in 1000 0.1%, just to contest your figure.
We cannot know if that is just a local spread ,but the idea that we observe the biggest variation in the cosmos is absurd so it’s reasonable to assume much bigger spreads are found, which is why I rounded up to the nearest order of magnitude not down.


What you quoted in your post was 0.00001% that’s a variation of 1 in 10million it was that I objected to.
Which on a base number of 6.671 is 6.671000 to 6.671001 or something. One of us is way out and having a bad day. Whilst I sometimes do have a bad day, I don’t think it’s me this time. Check your 0.00001% of post #5.

 

[Mountainmike]

Oh bruvva!
If you don't know how it moved, then how do you know 'whatever propelled it is not of our science'?
.. Pathetic reasoning from a self-professed so-called 'scientist'!

Selfsim Ratio of insults to science approaching infinity as always.

There was no sonic boom. Or noise. Right angle instant turns don’t occur in aviation. Even open loop unstable air frames designed for agility like euro fighter cannot even get close to what this did. Nor can missiles. The air frame stress would shred them to bits. Assuming it had significant mass the g it pulled in straight line acceleration , let alone the turn was way past missile. As I pointed out before I analyzed such as air to air missile dynamics. So I know. Math modelling and dynamics is my thing.

But then pilots who describe ufo behaviour state the dynamics is way past their experience. Now they are allowed to mention them officially that is.

It’s a piece of evidence that questions whether other propulsion systems can or do exist. Fossil fuelled engines will become fossils. Just give it time.

Yet @SelfSim as always does not address the science question. Long on insults . No information.
Where most of the mass in the universe is. Blue sky thinking needed. The old assumptions are not giving answers. What’s yours?