sstman

Ghideon: Conservation of momentum goes out the window. That's a tough pill to swallow, I know. But we are theorizing about a completely new substance here: anti-mater is not a good term, since that is taken and refers to something else. A better term might be anti-gravity-matter. joigus: I was talking about my theory, for lack of a better term, on what dark matter really is, dark matter being the thing that keeps galaxies from flying apart. Its the anti-gravity-matter I was referring to to Ghideon. beecee: I can't say I disagree, that something does not need to be physical to be real. But a lot of things fall into place if in fact space is physical. That is what this is all about. I'm going to go ahead and start over in a new thread, because this is getting unruly. All good conversation, I just want and need to be on the same page as everyone.

studiot, I believe we are in agreement, though I would add that while flux is certainly defined in terms of any surface, the gravitational flux that I was referencing is over a closed surface. Otherwise, it would not be unique for a given mass. Flux is more commonly applied in Gauss's Law in electrostatics, but it applies equally well for gravity, since both are 1/r2 functions. swansant: thanks for the links. All: Many of you take issue with my assertion that space is not nothing, and in retrospect, this is reasonable. So, let me rephrase: My fundamental assumption is that space is not nothing. In fact, I am advocating the paradigm shift in thinking that space is the only truly physical thing. That's pretty bold, I know, but the more I pursued this, the more things fell into place. I think the thing to do is take a step back and present my thoughts in bite-size chunks, as swansant recommended, using the tools he has recommended for adding equations. Eventually we will get to my home experiments, with quite shocking results. It might be best to begin this in another thread. Kind of reboot and start over. I'm open to suggestions. Either way, one thing I will say is that nothing I present will break existing laws of physics. For example, I won't claim that relativity is wrong, or that Coulombs law is wrong. That would be serious crackpot stuff. However, what I do want to show is that both gravity and electrostatics may be subsets of a larger theory, just as Einstein showed that Newtonian physics is a subset of a larger theory. Don't get me wrong - I am no Einstein (just ask my wife and kids). This is something I just stumbled upon and the further I followed it the more it worked. Anywho, unfortunately I have a day job and family obligations, (last week I was on vacation) so I probably won't be able to post more than once a day. But that's probably good - let each post soak for a day and see what it catches. My next post will be the first part of my thoughts on matter, with the first paragraph revised to make it clear that I am assuming, not asserting, that space is not nothing. Hopefully I will do this tonight, but no promises. Thanks and regards.

First let me say thanks for all the comments/criticisms. This is exactly what I was hoping for - to clarify things seem clear to me but may not be. It would help if I could embed an image, but that might have to be downloaded. So here is the idea: <---* <---# The asterisk on the left is normal matter, and the arrow on it is the force from the dark matter (antigravity). The pound sign on the right is dark matter, and the arrow on it is the force from the normal matter. As I state in the pdf, this violates the second half of Newton's 3rd law: the forces are equal but not opposite. Now, if there is a whole lot more normal matter, then the affect on it is much less than the affect on the dark matter. So the dark matter gets pulled in. This is just like if I jump up in the air, then technically I am moving the earth a wee bit in the opposite direction, but of course the motion of the earth is negligible. The same idea applies to a galaxy. The dark matter, which exists almost exclusively in particle form (since by nature it disperses and won't form atoms), is pulled in from all directions. But it is repelled by other dark matter, until an equilibrium is formed - the pull from the galaxy keeps the halo from dispersing. Testing cutting and pasting an image: Joy! that looks like it worked to me anyway. Let me know if you see a circle without having to download anything. If so, then I can include the original text of the pdf's and use images for equations. That should make swansont happy. beecee, I get what you are saying, but even Einstein believed that space had physical properties. See the quote I posted by Einstein earlier. Or look at it another way: any wave we know of needs a medium - something to wave. Physics struggled with this along time ago, and the Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to find our speed relative to the medium that waves (the ether), but failed spectacularly. Special relativity solved that by asserting that motion relative to a static ether cannot be detected. But that does not mean that it does not exits. All I am saying is that we need to rethink the idea that "empty" space is nothing. I'm certainly not alone, though I am taking a different approach. The following is from the wikipedia article on the quantum vacuum state Quantum vacuum state - Wikipedia: According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space". According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.

Bufofrog: What I meant is that the external halo is prevented from collapsing in, not the galaxy. The galaxy itself is prevented from collapsing by the rotation. The problem is that stars on the edge of galaxies are rotating faster than the calculated mass of the galaxy would seem to allow. A halo of antigravity material outside the galaxy solves that problem. Also, if I had a handful of antigravity material, whether of not it shot away from the earth, hovered in place, or fell more slowly than normal depends on the extent of the antigravity. The idea is that it is still being affected by the gravity of the earth. Sorry studiot, I guess I did not read your question carefully. The dimensions of space must be that of volume - m3. If I wanted to know how much space is in the universe, I would need to know the volume of the universe. Gravitational flux is obtained by integrating the gravitational field (units m/s2, same as acceleration), over a surface that encloses the mass of interest. A surface has units of m2. The integral has the units of their product: m/s2 x m2 = m3/s2. I hope that answers your question.

BufoFrog: I am not referring to the existing theory on a dark matter halo inside the galaxy, which might hold it together from within. Existing theory on dark matter is that it is just another form of normal matter, with gravity in the normal sense. My idea is that it is actually a source of anti-gravity, and would have been pulled in over time after the galaxy had begun to form. A push-pull relationship occurs. The gravity from the galaxy pulls it in and holds it in place, but the anti-gravity from the halo pushes against the galaxy (and itself), keeping it from collapsing toward the center. I hope that made sense, and thanks for reading, btw. swansont, et. al: Quoting Albert Einstein in his 1920 speech at the university of Leiden: “Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time …” To be fair, he does go on to say that the idea of space being tracked through time must rejected. Obviously I take issue with that. studiot: Not sure I follow. Please check out part one of the documents I attached. Swansont, are they still visible, or did you remove them? I still see them. exchemist: that is precisely what I have done - advanced a simpler theory that accounts for the observations. Furthermore, any good theory should predict the results of experiments that have not been previously performed. I have done that as well. At the end of Part 1, I suggest a version of the Michelson-Morley experiment in a vertical plane to confirm or deny the theory. in Part 4 - UFT I went a step further and did home experiments myself, and suggest an experiment using a torsion balance.

zapatos, it seems self-evident. swansont, I will look into LaTex. Phi for All, a google search for "occams razor" returns as the first result: : a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

I get it swansont. And I'm sure you deal with a lot of spammers. I'm just somewhat at a loss as to how to present what I have. For the sake of Bufofrog and anyone else who might be interested: We need to ask the question what exactly is space? It can't be nothing, because nothing can't propagate light waves. And what does it mean for the universe to be expanding? Is space being stretched, or are we getting more space? I theorize that we are getting more space. But here is where things get interesting: We could completely do away with the kilogram and use gravitational flux as a unit of mass. Gravitational flux has units of m3/s2. Now dimensional analysis is an accepted and useful way to understand a property. So what else has units of m3/s2? Well, if the volume of something is changing, then the rate of change is m3/s. If the rate of change is changing, then that has units m3/s2. Now suppose you have a sphere that is shrinking so that change in the rate of change is constant - m3/s2 is constant. Then it turns out that the speed of the radius as it decreases goes as 1 over the square root of the radius. But so does the speed of an object in free fall from infinity. The idea then is that the reason for gravity is that space itself is being lost through matter. An object in free fall from infinity is just riding in the surrounding space. OK, great, but our universe is expanding. Well, if space can leave the universe, then it should also be able to enter the universe. That is where I believe dark matter comes into play. And just as matter pulls everything closer, dark matter pushes everything away. So what you end up with is a dark matter halo surrounding galaxies that pushes in toward the center of the galaxy. That can provide the additional centripetal force. This is the gist of the source-sink theroy: we live in a universe of sources and sinks. The funny part is, the more I thought about this, the more other things fell into place, like charged particles. I'll leave you with this for now, hopefully it is worth commenting on by you and others.

Phi for All: Why shouldn't it be intuitive? Isn't that what Occam's Razor is all about? Should we not be seeking a comprehensive understanding of the universe? And by the way, I have a Bachelor's and a Master's degree in physics, so no, I am not confused about relativity. If trying to put the pieces together is "making this all up", then so be it. Swansont: What I have attached represents a great deal of thought and experimentation, and includes equations and figures. It is the support material. But maybe this was the wrong place to try and present original thinking, backed up with math and experiments as your guidelines for this forum state. My bad.

My apologies for posting this in another forum as a link to my website. I understand the hesitancy to go there. The attached PDF's also have embedded links - just ignore them if you do not want to view the referenced images and videos. SST Introduction.pdf SST Part 1 - Matter.pdf SST Part 2 - Dark Matter.pdf SST Part 3 - Charge.pdf SST Part 4 - UFT.pdf SST Part 5 - Closed.pdf SST Part 6 - Shockwave.pdf SST Part 7 - Quantum.pdf

If you have some time, please visit commercial link removed by moderator, and let me know what you think. You may be pleasantly surprised. Thank you.