Dark Matter

[MikeAL]

This is the second post I would like some comment on if you guys wouldn't mind.

 Dark Matter

In QM, gravity is considered a force, the graviton being the force carrier. In GR, gravity is represented as a geometric curvature of spacetime created by mass.

When we have (spacetime) expansion and we have (spacetime) curvature, it is hard not to imagine waves. Gravity waves were predicted by Einstein and recently observed emanating from neutron stars.

“Gravitational waves are ripples in the curvature of spacetime that are generated in certain gravitational interactions and propagate as waves outward from their source at the speed of light.
In Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity is treated as a phenomenon resulting from the curvature of spacetime. This curvature is caused by the presence of mass. Generally, the more mass that is contained within a given volume of space, the greater the curvature of spacetime will be at the boundary of its volume. As objects with mass move around in spacetime, the curvature changes to reflect the changed locations of those objects. In certain circumstances, accelerating objects generate changes in this curvature, which propagate outwards at the speed of light in a wave-like manner. These propagating phenomena are known as gravitational waves.” [ quote ]

Higgs, Temperature & Curvature

The Higgs Mechanism speculates that mass arose with the cooling of the universe. When energy fell below a certain very high critical temperature it caused a symmetry breaking.

“The simplest description of the mechanism adds a quantum field (the Higgs field) that permeates all space, to the Standard Model. Below some extremely high temperature, the field causes spontaneous symmetry breaking [between the electroweak interactions (electromagnetism and weak interaction- which at high temperature appear symmetrical in all respects)].
The breaking of symmetry triggers the Higgs mechanism, causing the bosons it interacts with to have mass.” [ quote1 ] (In Supersymmetry, which attempts to unite QM with GR the bosons are force carriers with no mass, fermions are the constituents of matter because they have mass)

The first important thing to note here is that the Higgs Mechanism talks in terms of fields – the Higgs field which is added to the Standard Model (of fundamental forces) to explain the formation of mass. It also talks of temperature invoking the creation of mass (claiming a symmetry break of electroweak forces). I want to look at temperature as it relates to curvature of space.

If the Universe continues to expand, science predicts a heat death (where there is no difference in temperature across space). The heat death has been described as occurring due to entropy. “When all the energy the in the cosmos is uniformly spread out, there is no more heat or free energy to fuel processes that consume energy, such as life.” [ quote2 ]


The equal distribution of energy in the universe would correspond to one with no curvature (no region denser than another).

“If the topology of the universe is open or flat, or if dark energy is a positive cosmological constant (both of which are supported by current data), the universe will continue expanding forever and a heat death is expected to occur, with the universe cooling to approach equilibrium at a very low temperature after a very long time period.” [ quote3 ]

Thus, curvature and temperature can be related in this sense. A flattening of space equates with a reduction in temperature because of the even distribution of energy across it. The Higgs Mechanism suggests that a decrease in temperature (the spacing of energy) caused matter to materialise via this mechanism. We might thus re-write this assumption as: a change in the curvature of spacetime caused matter to materialise via this mechanism.

An inward curvature of space represents gravity. Thus, we could say that gravity caused matter to materialise… via this mechanism. Note, this is suggesting gravity is the cause of matter, not that matter is the cause of gravity. It is a distinction I wish to stress (and my assertion).

Gravity Waves and The Big Bang

“In Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity is treated as a phenomenon resulting from the curvature of spacetime. This curvature is caused by the presence of mass.” [ quote4 ]

I believe there is a problem with looking at gravity in terms of mass. The problem is it becomes very pointilised. A sun has a gravity of X-value, and sits in its well, bending space around it enough to trap the orbits of the planets which all sit in their own gravity wells trapping their moons etc. Each one of the positions is a point in space from which gravity emanates.

I find the idea of such pointilised gravity counter-intuitive at large scales – we don’t see points. We see corridors or troughs of gravity. Higgs suggested a change in a field to create matter. Changes in field states are expressed as waves.

I suggest that gravity propagated as a wave at the time of the Big Bang, much like it did in the recorded observations of the neutron stars. As it’s wavelength redshifted, the temperature dropped causing mass/matter to precipitate through some (the Higgs) mechanism. It was no ordinary wave though. I suggest it was a ‘Prime Wave’, meaning that it came momentarily before the others.

Gravity is unique among the forces, for while it does not respond to the influence from the other forces, it does exert an effect upon them, much like a master-slave relation. “Gravitational waves can penetrate regions of space that electromagnetic waves cannot.” [ quote5 ]

“The fundamental reason that gravitons have proved harder to model than other bosons such as photons, is that other types of bosons do not interact with other bosons of their own type. For example, photons do not interact with photons. Photons carry the electromagnetic force, but are not charged themselves and do not interact via this force. Photons have (relativistic) mass and interact with gravity, but not with their own forces. Like photons, gravitons also carry (relativistic) mass, but unlike photons and gluons, they carry the gravitational force which interacts with this mass. As well as gravitons having to thus interact with other gravitons, quantum mechanics means they must also interact with themselves via virtual particles.” [ quote6 ]

It's prime position among other particles and forces, and the way it curves spacetime, suggests that the emanating gravitational wave from the time of the Big Bang might be the underlying fabric of spacetime itself.

“In some descriptions energy modifies the "shape" of spacetime itself, and gravity is a result of this shape, an idea which at first glance may appear hard to match with the idea of a force acting between particles.” [ quote7 ]

The universe we see is not dominated by outwardly expanding rings of gravity, but rather cut up into interference patterns (clusters of matter in long thin threads). For this reason, the idea of gravity troughs or gravity corridors carries a greater visual power than gravity waves – although the one necessarily implies the other. (I will attempt to explain this clumpiness shortly).

Dark Matter

“Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter distinct from baryonic matter (ordinary matter such as protons and neutrons), neutrinos and dark energy.
Dark matter has never been directly observed; however, its existence would explain a number of otherwise puzzling astronomical observations. The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or interact with observable electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.” [ quote8 ]

At this point I would like to redirect your attention to the earlier quote: “Gravitational waves can penetrate regions of space that electromagnetic waves cannot.” [ quote9 ]

“Although dark matter has not been directly observed, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects such as the motions of baryonic matter, gravitational lensing, its influence on the universe's large-scale structure, on the formation of galaxies, and its effects on the cosmic microwave background.
The standard model of cosmology indicates that the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy. Thus, dark matter constitutes 84.5% of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of total mass–energy content.” [ quote10 ]

I define gravity corridors as long sunken regions of space where the collective gravities are exerting a collective pull on the fabric of space. I further suggest that this collective pull on the fabric of space is causing a sinking of space beyond the numerical sum of each individual gravity (an extended caving in around gravity clusters)- such an effect could be a candidate for Dark Matter. It is an important note here while I am insisting there can be no matter without gravity, I am also asserting the existence of gravity without matter. We could liken the formation of matter from gravity as similar in nature to a thermocline, where matter precipitates out beyond a certain gravity value/curvature. That value was attained at the time of the Big Bang.

The idea that gravity should be thought of in terms of permanent corridors (more than just being a ripple effect of a disturbance or a matter-point phenomenon) is further strengthened by the examination of superclusters.

“The entire universe can be seen as an intricate network of galaxies called the Cosmic Web. Some areas are almost empty, dark voids. Others are densely packed regions of galaxies known as superclusters. Superclusters are the biggest structures found in the universe. But scientists have struggled to map where one ends and the other begins.” “Cosmic flows are the paths galaxies migrate along.” “Most galaxies are being pulled toward a dense centre, known as The Great Attractor” (paraphrased) [ Link ] I highly recommend you watch the 4 min video in this link.

Once created, matter became ‘locked’ in its energy configuration, to mostly dwell in the bottom of the gravity corridors in which it was formed. The settling of matter in these descending corridors has created the appearance of “Clustering or Clumpiness” of matter in the universe.

As was established at the start of the first OP, matter has sequestered energy that is no longer freely available for the universe to use in its energy fields. It is perhaps useful to think of matter, with its gravity that will only yield to entropy, as a stabilising force, giving a certain rigidity and integrity/permanence or inertia to gravitational wave corridors.

In addition to acting as a stabilising force, this locking of energy gives a property to matter discreet from gravity. It is the ability to move translationally through spacetime given enough momentum to do so- taking its gravity with it. Collisions amongst particles, gravity slingshots, or descending gravity corridors, might have provided such momentum.

This interaction of matter with itself has created the interference patterns in the otherwise symmetrical ripples of space time. It is these interference patterns and gravity corridors we can see when we look at the Cosmic Web and superclusters.

Thus gravity is a wave phenomenon which gave (gives?) rise to matter. Matter thereafter has it's own intrinsic gravity. Gravity though persists without the need for matter, although matter will settle into it's deepest parts. This I have since found might be expressed as G and g, (the cosmological gravitational constant). It is this recognition of gravity not dependent on matter which could account for Dark Matter - an unseen gravitational force of massive magnitude.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, MikeAL said:

I believe there is a problem with looking at gravity in terms of mass.

You may well believe that. But until you come up with a more accurate model than GR, no one cares.

1 hour ago, MikeAL said:

We see corridors or troughs of gravity.

No we don't.

1 hour ago, MikeAL said:

Higgs suggested a change in a field to create matter. 

To create mass, not matter.

1 hour ago, MikeAL said:

Thus gravity is a wave phenomenon

No. It really isn't.

As for the rest: tl;dr. I'm afraid I ran out of patience with this long, uninformed essay.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations. Please read the special rules for this section of the forum. Defend your ideas with evidence as much as possible.

 

[MikeAL]

20 hours ago, Strange said:

22 hours ago, MikeAL said:

We see corridors or troughs of gravity.

No we don't.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/r-new-map-shows-milky-way-lives-in-laniakea-galaxy-complex-2014-9 

Watch the video.

20 hours ago, Strange said:

22 hours ago, MikeAL said:

I believe there is a problem with looking at gravity in terms of mass.

You may well believe that. But until you come up with a more accurate model than GR, no one cares.

Not constructive feedback.

20 hours ago, Strange said:

As for the rest: tl;dr. I'm afraid I ran out of patience with this long, uninformed essay.

Unnecessary feedback.

20 hours ago, Strange said:

22 hours ago, MikeAL said:

Higgs suggested a change in a field to create matter. 

To create mass, not matter.

The Dark matter idea is suggesting mass in the absence of matter. You are trying to play word games with me.

 

20 hours ago, Strange said:

22 hours ago, MikeAL said:

Thus gravity is a wave phenomenon

No. It really isn't.

Really?

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/r-new-map-shows-milky-way-lives-in-laniakea-galaxy-complex-2014-9 Watch the video.

It is a video, so no. But I assume from the title of the link that it is about the large scale structure of galaxies, clusters, filaments, etc. If so, that is describing the distribution of matter.

I don't know what "corridors" and "troughs" of gravity means. But if you just mean that mass forms large structures, then yes.

Quote

Not constructive feedback.

Actually, very constructive. This is a science forum. We are discussing science and scientific theories. That means you need to have a mathematical model capable of making predictions before anyone will take an idea seriously. A vague "it seems to me" based on a superficial understanding is not useful.

Quote

The Dark matter idea is suggesting mass in the absence of matter. You are trying to play word games with me.

No. It is suggesting the presence of matter (which is not visible). Mass is a property; you can't have mass without matter.

Quote

Really?

Really. For example, things fall to the ground because of the static space-time curvature produced by the mass of the Earth. No waves involved.

Gravitational waves are only produced in specific circumstances, like binary black holes.

[MikeAL]

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

1 hour ago, MikeAL said:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/r-new-map-shows-milky-way-lives-in-laniakea-galaxy-complex-2014-9 Watch the video.

It is a video, so no. But I assume from the title of the link that it is about the large scale structure of galaxies, clusters, filaments, etc. If so, that is describing the distribution of matter.

I don't know what "corridors" and "troughs" of gravity means. But if you just mean that mass forms large structures, then yes.

You've gone from a no to a yes just because I pasted a link to a video you refuse to watch? It only goes for 4 minutes. It's very good. It's one of those holy shit things.

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

We are discussing science and scientific theories. That means you need to have a mathematical model capable of making predictions before anyone will take an idea seriously. A vague "it seems to me" based on a superficial understanding is not useful.

Quote

That's true. That's why I've come here. I was hoping some mathematically minded people might tell me that it is a quantitatively justifiable assertion or that it is not, and give reasons. My maths is relatively low. I can generate simple relationship equations to explain my ideas but the complex maths is where the fun is. I'm intending to head there. That being said, I think there was reasonable enough content in what I proposed for Dark Energy and Dark Matter to pose an ontological explanation of what is occurring. 

 

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

Quote

The Dark matter idea is suggesting mass in the absence of matter. You are trying to play word games with me.

No. It is suggesting the presence of matter (which is not visible). Mass is a property; you can't have mass without matter.

The entire premise of the OP is to consider the possibility of gravity as mass without matter. Do you understand that? A change in the Higgs field or any field is represented as a wave. The wave comes before the mass. The assertion is it is not mass and then gravity. It is gravity and then mass. Simply saying:  'no, not true,' really has no punching power when I'm asserting it does. If you have facts can show the error of my logic I would like to hear them. That is why I am here.

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

For example, things fall to the ground because of the static space-time curvature produced by the mass of the Earth. No waves involved.

Gravitational waves are only produced in specific circumstances, like binary black holes.

Not waves, yet waves? A Dark Matter interpretation of gravity as distinct from the more discreet forms of gravity we associate with matter (call it G and g if you like) might qualify as a special circumstance, wouldn't you say, Strange?

Edited October 27, 2017 by MikeAL

[Strange]

1 hour ago, MikeAL said:

You've gone from a no to a yes just because I pasted a link to a video you refuse to watch? It only goes for 4 minutes. It's very good. It's one of those holy shit things.

I have changed my answer because you have clarified what you meant. 

Quote

The entire premise of the OP is to consider the possibility of gravity as mass without matter. Do you understand that? A change in the Higgs field or any field is represented as a wave. 

Well, both energy and mass (and a few other things, like pressure) contribute to gravitation. And gravitational fields have energy themselves and therefore also cause gravity themselves. This non-linearity is partly why GR is so complex. However, this does not become significant until you get to the extreme conditions of black holes, etc.

Quote

Not waves, yet waves?

Gravity is not caused by waves, is all I am saying.

Quote

A Dark Matter interpretation of gravity as distinct from the more discreet forms of gravity we associate with matter (call it G and g if you like) might qualify as a special circumstance, wouldn't you say, Strange?

With suitable evidence...

[MikeAL]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Well, both energy and mass (and a few other things, like pressure) contribute to gravitation.

Let me run a simple thought experiment by you. It is based on a couple of assumptions. Do you agree that matter via mass causes a curvature of space-time, and that such curvature increases the density of space?

If you do, is it possible that the reverse is also true? - that a curvature of space-time increases the density of space, and therefore may create mass which gives rise to matter? In discreet gravity situations, the two are inextricably linked. There is no evidence of one coming before the other - unless you know of one? To me it seems almost a chicken and egg paradox.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

Let me run a simple thought experiment by you. It is based on a couple of assumptions. Do you agree that matter via mass causes a curvature of space-time, and that such curvature increases the density of space?

What is the "density of space"? Do you mean the amount of material in interstellar space? Or something else?

[MikeAL]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is the "density of space"? Do you mean the amount of material in interstellar space? Or something else?

No, not material. The field lines of gravity become concentrated. Does that explanation make sense to you?

Edited October 27, 2017 by MikeAL

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

No, not material. The field lines of gravity become concentrated. Does that explanation make sense to you?

I have never heard it described in those terms before. And I don't see how it could create mass. But you might need someone with a more detailed knowledge of GR than I have. (You need someone like Mordred to join the thread ...)

[Silvestru]

29 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

No, not material. The field lines of gravity become concentrated

MikeAL: Do you agree that matter via mass causes a curvature of space-time, and that such curvature increases the density of space?

"The force exerted on an object in a gravitational field depends on its position. The less concentrated the field lines, the smaller the force."

By "density of space" you mean ... more gravity?

Really interesting thread anyway. Like strange said, this looks like a job for Mordred.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Silvestru
Misquoted

[MikeAL]

Just now, Strange said:

And I don't see how it could create mass.

It is no more an elusive concept that mass creating gravity. But let me try a different approach. I'm sure you're aware of the illustrations of an earth size body sitting at the bottom of a gravitational well. Well, of course the 3D equivalent of that would be happening with force lines going in. The density of the force lines as we approach the center would increase. 

The body at the center of the gravity well is said to be curving space around it (the idea that it is doing the curving rather than a result of the curving is the contentious bit, but I'll skip it for now). However there is the region around the matter where space is funneling in that has no mass in it - and yet it is curved. GR is aware of it and does account for it, but nonetheless matterless gravity is occurring. I would expect matter to fill every inch of curved space not just the center.

Does mass exist in a gravity wave from two neutron stars? I don't know. Or in this special case is space time bending in the absence of matter? Is gravity existing without matter? 

2 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Really interesting thread anyway. Like strange said, this looks like a job for Mordred.

I'm starting to get a bit scared of this Mordred character. Should I quit while I'm ahead?  

[Silvestru]

20 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

I'm starting to get a bit scared of this Mordred character. Should I quit while I'm ahead?

No no, Mordred is a really nice guy, knowledgeable in areas of physics and math.

I don't understand him 99% of the time as he uses nerdspeak to communicate.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Silvestru

[beecee]

20 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

The body at the center of the gravity well is said to be curving space around it (the idea that it is doing the curving rather than a result of the curving is the contentious bit, but I'll skip it for now). However there is the region around the matter where space is funneling in that has no mass in it - and yet it is curved. GR is aware of it and does account for it, but nonetheless matterless gravity is occurring. I would expect matter to fill every inch of curved space not just the center.

Does mass exist in a gravity wave from two neutron stars? I don't know. Or in this special case is space time bending in the absence of matter? Is gravity existing without matter? 

I'm starting to get a bit scared of this Mordred character. Should I quit while I'm ahead?  

I'm not Mordred, just a interesting lay person who has decided to "pop in"  for a moment after watching some football, and before retiring....But are you referring to the fact that gravity makes gravity? Commonly known as the nonlinearity of gravity/space/time.

I also don't believe that "mass"  exists in any gravitational wave, and imo see gravity more a property of the geometry of spacetime rather then any property of mass.

[Strange]

26 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

It is no more an elusive concept that mass creating gravity.

Except have good evidence that that is the case.

27 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

I'm sure you're aware of the illustrations of an earth size body sitting at the bottom of a gravitational well. Well, of course the 3D equivalent of that would be happening with force lines going in. The density of the force lines as we approach the center would increase. 

I am not sure that those illustrations tell you anything useful about the way GR behaves. I doubt you can extrapolate from those to come up with an explanation of anything. For example, gravity is mainly due to the curvature of the time dimension, not the spatial ones. But you can't see (or even represent) that in those diagrams.

29 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

However there is the region around the matter where space is funneling in that has no mass in it - and yet it is curved. GR is aware of it and does account for it, but nonetheless matterless gravity is occurring. I would expect matter to fill every inch of curved space not just the center.

If that were the case, there would be no gravity outside of the body. But there is, so your expectation is faulty. (Which is the problem when trying to use your intuition to understand what you think GR should do.)

31 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

Does mass exist in a gravity wave from two neutron stars?

No, but they do carry energy away. So the mass of the resulting neutron star is less than the sum of the two original ones. 

[MikeAL]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

But are you referring to the fact that gravity makes gravity? Commonly known as the nonlinearity of gravity/space/time.

Yep.

1 minute ago, beecee said:

I also don't believe that "mass"  exists in any gravitational wave, and imo see gravity more a property of the geometry of spacetime rather then any property of mass.

The gravitational wave is more of an attempt to explain Dark Energy and the pattern we see in the universe. For gravity I agree that it is the geometry of space time... or is the geometry of space time gravity? But if gravity is an area where force lines converge, then geometrically speaking we could have areas where they are parallel, where they converge, and where they separate (or become less dense). But if they become less dense, then that can't be gravity.... What could it be? What properties might such an outward geometric curvature have? 

For one, I would expect gravity to be... well the exact opposite. A repulsion. The field lines would be pushing things around in, not drawing it in. Such a bubble in space would want to collapse outward like a puff of air from a pillow. Would that expand space time?

You know that this sounds like?...Dark Energy.

 

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

39 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

It is no more an elusive concept that mass creating gravity.

Except have good evidence that that is the case.

What evidence is that?

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

I am not sure that those illustrations tell you anything useful about the way GR behaves. I doubt you can extrapolate from those to come up with an explanation of anything. For example, gravity is mainly due to the curvature of the time dimension, not the spatial ones. But you can't see (or even represent) that in those diagrams.

I half agree with you. I was trying to illustrate my point with a well known diagram. Time effects are considered in Dark Energy. 

 

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

43 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

However there is the region around the matter where space is funneling in that has no mass in it - and yet it is curved. GR is aware of it and does account for it, but nonetheless matterless gravity is occurring. I would expect matter to fill every inch of curved space not just the center.

If that were the case, there would be no gravity outside of the body. But there is, so your expectation is faulty. (Which is the problem when trying to use your intuition to understand what you think GR should do.)

 

Ah, I see. There is gravity outside the body is there? My OP suggests that perhaps matter 'precipitates (or precipitated)' out at a certain curvature or density of space. In this scenario it would be the curvature of space-time that is creating the mass - matter.

Oh, and the last bit about using intuition to figure out what GR should do - not that I'm comparing myself - but there is a lot of reports of Einstein doing just that to figure out GR.

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

50 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

Does mass exist in a gravity wave from two neutron stars?

No, but they do carry energy away. So the mass of the resulting neutron star is less than the sum of the two original ones. 

Hmm, energy, no matter, gravity - could be a candidate for Dark Matter don't you think?

[Strange]

41 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

For one, I would expect gravity to be... well the exact opposite. A repulsion. The field lines would be pushing things around in, not drawing it in. Such a bubble in space would want to collapse outward like a puff of air from a pillow. Would that expand space time?

And, again, this is the problem with trying to understand the geometry of pseudo-Reimannian manifolds by looking at pictures in popular science articles.

44 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

What evidence is that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2015/11/28/classical-tests-general-relativity/

http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/rosalba/astro2030/GeneralRelativity_tests.pdf

46 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

Ah, I see. There is gravity outside the body is there?

Yes. You may have noticed that apples fall from trees.

47 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

but there is a lot of reports of Einstein doing just that to figure out GR.

But he had a very, very deep understanding of the maths behind the theory (he came up with it, after all) and so his intuition was useful.

48 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

Hmm, energy, no matter, gravity - could be a candidate for Dark Matter don't you think?

No. Gravitational waves are transient and very, very small (on cosmological scales).

[MikeAL]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

And, again, this is the problem with trying to understand the geometry of pseudo-Reimannian manifolds by looking at pictures in popular science articles.

Perhaps. Perhaps it actually is that simple to visualise the complex math. A lot of math put in geometric form is quite intuitive.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

51 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

Ah, I see. There is gravity outside the body is there?

Yes. You may have noticed that apples fall from trees.

Yes, the gravity field of the earth and the gravity field of the apple embraced each other and pulled the two together.

Gravity giving rise to gravity - shouldn't that be matter giving rise to gravity?

Energy giving rise to gravity - shouldn't that be matter giving rise to gravity?

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

53 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

Hmm, energy, no matter, gravity - could be a candidate for Dark Matter don't you think?

No. Gravitational waves are transient and very, very small (on cosmological scales).

So we can rule out gravity waves from neutron stars as accounting for dark matter, even though the idea of gravity without matter (the premise of the OP) survives.

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

55 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

What evidence is that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2015/11/28/classical-tests-general-relativity/

http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/rosalba/astro2030/GeneralRelativity_tests.pdf

It's getting a bit late to be going through it, but I'll take a look at the links sometime tomorrow and see how it separates the ideas of gravity from matter and matter from gravity. 

[Strange]

20 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

Perhaps. Perhaps it actually is that simple to visualise the complex math. A lot of math put in geometric form is quite intuitive.

You could start here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/

That gives a reasonable comprehensible explanation of the math and what it means.

20 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

Gravity giving rise to gravity - shouldn't that be matter giving rise to gravity?

Energy giving rise to gravity - shouldn't that be matter giving rise to gravity?

No. Mass is not the only thing that gives rise to gravity. This is described by the elements of the stress-energy tensor:

Mass is included (mainly) as the energy density.

20 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

see how it separates the ideas of gravity from matter and matter from gravity. 

It doesn't. They are inextricably linked.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Strange

[MikeAL]

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

59 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

Gravity giving rise to gravity - shouldn't that be matter giving rise to gravity?

Energy giving rise to gravity - shouldn't that be matter giving rise to gravity?

No. Mass is not the only thing that gives rise to gravity. This is described by the elements of the stress-energy tensor:

Mass is included (mainly) as the energy density.

59 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

see how it separates the ideas of gravity from matter and matter from gravity. 

It doesn't. They are inextricably linked.

Great to see you finally agreeing with me.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

Great to see you finally agreeing with me.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, MikeAL said:

Great to see you finally agreeing with me.

!

Moderator Note

This seems like trolling. Please explain where you think Strange is agreeing with you. 

The purpose of this section is for you to support non-mainstream concepts and have them questioned and corrected by the membership. I see lots of corrections of the foundations of your concepts and very little acknowledgement that this most certainly affects the validity of your ideas. You continue to defend as if nothing was wrong.

This is a science discussion forum. It's not a blog, it's not a pulpit. You need to support your ideas with evidence, and take valid criticism on board if you want this thread to stay open. It would be a shame if you actually were on to something but got sucked into a hole of misconception because you didn't listen.

 

[beecee]

8 hours ago, MikeAL said:

Yep.

The gravitational wave is more of an attempt to explain Dark Energy and the pattern we see in the universe. For gravity I agree that it is the geometry of space time... or is the geometry of space time gravity? But if gravity is an area where force lines converge, then geometrically speaking we could have areas where they are parallel, where they converge, and where they separate (or become less dense). But if they become less dense, then that can't be gravity.... What could it be? What properties might such an outward geometric curvature have? 

? The gravitational wave is simply a result of ripples in the geometry of spacetime caused by different interactions of massive objects such as colliding BHs and Neutron stars. Reading through your posts, and as an amateur I find them rather confusing to say the least. eg; Your remark thus, "For gravity I agree that it is the geometry of space time... or is the geometry of space time gravity?" This seems just a play on words. Plus the faorce lines you mention are simply illustrations of the model as an aid to explanation.

When I mentioned about the nonlinearity of gravity/space/time and gravity making gravity, I see it as an explanation to the often raised question of how gravity gets out of a BH, along of course with the fact that any BH gravitational field is just a fossil field from the object from whence it arose. In any respect mass is needed. Every object has its gravity well and a gravity well may be a part of some larger gravity well. eg Earth/Moon...Earth/Moon/Sun...Earth/Moon/Sun/Galaxy etc. DM is evidenced by the bullet cluster observation, and other examples of gravitational lensing, or light simply following geodesics in curved spacetime, created by both baryonic and DM. DE whatever it maybe, is evident in the accelerated expansion of spacetime that we observe. Again, the picture you seem to paint, is one of confusion, (at least to me) and unnecessary, unevidenced  complicated scenarios. 

[MikeAL]

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This seems like trolling. Please explain where you think Strange is agreeing with you. 

I have clearly stated that the premise of my OP for dark matter is that gravity may be arising independently of mass from matter. Now Strange has agreed that mass is not the only thing that gives rise to gravity. 

10 hours ago, MikeAL said:

  10 hours ago, Strange said:

11 hours ago, MikeAL said:

Gravity giving rise to gravity - shouldn't that be matter giving rise to gravity?

Energy giving rise to gravity - shouldn't that be matter giving rise to gravity?

No. Mass is not the only thing that gives rise to gravity.

I have specifically stated that mass and gravity appear inextricably linked. Strange has now parroted those exact words back to me, even after he tried to give me evidence that this was not the case. 

10 hours ago, MikeAL said:

11 hours ago, Strange said:

11 hours ago, MikeAL said:

see how it separates the ideas of gravity from matter and matter from gravity. 

It doesn't. They are inextricably linked.

Great to see you finally agreeing with me.

13 hours ago, MikeAL said:

If you do, is it possible that the reverse is also true? - that a curvature of space-time increases the density of space, and therefore may create mass which gives rise to matter? In discreet gravity situations, the two are inextricably linked. There is no evidence of one coming before the other - unless you know of one? To me it seems almost a chicken and egg paradox.

 

3 hours ago, beecee said:

"For gravity I agree that it is the geometry of space time... or is the geometry of space time gravity?" This seems just a play on words. Plus the faorce lines you mention are simply illustrations of the model as an aid to explanation.

The difference is that of one giving rise to the other versus one being the other. It is a subtle difference and I wanted to make it draw your attention toward some properties of space-time. And yes, force lines are illustrative. Obviously we don't have real force lines painted across the sky. That being said, they are not made up either. They are illustrating the direction of a force. This is why the illustration is functioning as an explanation.

3 hours ago, beecee said:

When I mentioned about the nonlinearity of gravity/space/time and gravity making gravity, I see it as an explanation to the often raised question of how gravity gets out of a BH, along of course with the fact that any BH gravitational field is just a fossil field from the object from whence it arose.

Ok, that's fine. But you do understand though that what you are saying is that after the object has left, the geometric impression in space-time remains, and this geometric curvature is gravity. There exists therefore an example of the contortion of space-time without matter holding the curvature in place. A bending of space-time creating gravity with no mass at the centre. Gravity is existing independently of matter.

3 hours ago, beecee said:

In any respect mass is needed. Every object has its gravity well and a gravity well may be a part of some larger gravity well. eg Earth/Moon...Earth/Moon/Sun...Earth/Moon/Sun/Galaxy etc. DM is evidenced by the bullet cluster observation, and other examples of gravitational lensing, or light simply following geodesics in curved spacetime, created by both baryonic and DM. DE whatever it maybe, is evident in the accelerated expansion of spacetime that we observe. Again, the picture you seem to paint, is one of confusion, (at least to me) and unnecessary, unevidenced  complicated scenarios. 

Dark Matter can be evidenced by these things. I am not saying Dark Matter does not exist. Far from it. I am saying Dark Matter does exist and the reason it is dark is because there is nothing there except the gravity caused by the bending of space-time independent of matter, which we just established above occurs. My explanation offers a reason why the gravity is so much greater than the calculated mass without having to invoke other more complicated scenarios. Far from confusing, it seems quite straight forward.

Dark Energy as described in terms of divergent force lines (the opposite of gravity) would create a bubble like structure in space that would tend toward collapse in terms of its geometric structure. This collapse would be providing an outward push contributing to the expansion of the universe. Furthermore as the bubble collapses the tangent of the slope would become more aligned with the direction of the expansion increasing the rate of expansion. Such a structure would seem to provide all the properties attributed to Dark Energy. The idea is very simple I think.