Dark matter relativity (a theory of relativity based on DM)

[DanMP]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

If it acts gravitationally it must and should be "swallowed" by a BH.

Still, it wouldn't happen at once, preventing DM to congregate around the BH. On the contrary, in the process of BH's formation, DM would buildup around the massive object, get pressed/compressed really hard by the gravitationally attracted layers of DM above, and, when the gravitational pull & the pressure get big enough, DM particles would be gradually swallowed by the, now fully formed, BH.

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Still, it wouldn't happen at once, preventing DM to congregate around the BH. On the contrary, in the process of BH's formation, DM would buildup around the massive object, get pressed/compressed really hard by the gravitationally attracted layers of DM above, and, when the gravitational pull & the pressure get big enough, DM particles would be gradually swallowed by the, now fully formed, BH.

I disagree. As per normal baryonic matter, if enough was present and in larger scales, such as comets, stellar remnants etc, the matter is broken down and forms an accretion disk that spirals into the BH. Matter is for all intents and purposes mostly broken down to its basic constituents by tidal gravitational effects and accelerated attraction before the EH is reached or crossed, although to what extent depends on the size of the BH.

[DanMP]

17 minutes ago, beecee said:

I disagree. As per normal baryonic matter, if enough was present and in larger scales, such as comets, stellar remnants etc, the matter is broken down and forms an accretion disk that spirals into the BH. Matter is for all intents and purposes mostly broken down to its basic constituents by tidal gravitational effects and accelerated attraction before the EH is reached or crossed, although to what extent depends on the size of the BH.

I was talking about DM, not baryonic matter. DM is, in my model, like a gas. Always.

My explanation wasn't about BH formation. It was about what would happen to DM in  such a process.

Edited August 25, 2018 by DanMP

[beecee]

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

I was talking about DM, not baryonic matter. DM is, in my model, like a gas. Always.

Yes, I realise that. I was talking about both, since they both interact gravitationally. And probably the major part of baryonic matter is actually a plasma and gas.

Quote

My explanation wasn't about BH formation. It was about what would happen to DM in  such a process.

And I'm simply saying if DM interacts gravitationally, why would it not act like normal matter.

[studiot]

24 minutes ago, beecee said:

And I'm simply saying if DM interacts gravitationally, why would it not act like normal matter.

Straight to the point. +1

[Strange]

58 minutes ago, beecee said:

And I'm simply saying if DM interacts gravitationally, why would it not act like normal matter.

The reason is that DM only interacts gravitationally.

"Normal" matter also interacts via electromagnetic forces (the particles bump into each other). This allows it to cool down and form small, dense clumps like stars and planets.

Dark matter requires much longer to form loose, large scale structures.

We know this because the initial hypothesis for dark matter is that it only interacts gravitationally (hence "dark"). And it turns out in that case, you naturally get the density distribution required to reproduce the rotation curves we see. If it behaved like a [baryonic] gas, then ti would collapse (like the other material in the galaxy) to form structures paralleling (or oven overlaying) the normal matter structures in the galaxy.

There is other evidence supportive of this, for example that simulations of the formation of the large scale structure of the universe only work when dark matter (that only interacts gravitationally) mis added to the mix in the observed proportion.

I really do want to get back to some of the details in the OP and the later posts but I am on holiday and so only have very little time!

[DanMP]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

And I'm simply saying if DM interacts gravitationally, why would it not act like normal matter.

Normal matter particles have more means to interact with each other, like electromagnetic force, etc. DM particles appear not able to do more than bump into each other. More important, in order to have rotation, you have to have an angular momentum ...  

Speaking of DM rotation and BHs: due to extremely high densities near a BH, DM particles are acquiring angular momentum from normal matter, so the darkmosphere rotates, more or less. You know it as frame dragging ...

Edited August 25, 2018 by DanMP

[Strange]

32 minutes ago, DanMP said:

DM particles appear not able to do more than bounce into each other.

Nope. They can’t do that. Bouncing only happens if they interact via something like the electromagnetic force. 

[studiot]

Can you tell me why there are so many dark particles in your proposal, as compared to normal matter particles?

I ask this because you are proposing that (your) dark particles are everywhere and basically 'fill all space' , including the mostly empty space in atoms.

Normal matter is much more sparse and normal space is largely devoid of normal matter.

Edited August 25, 2018 by studiot

[DanMP]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nope. They can’t do that. Bouncing only happens if they interact via something like the electromagnetic force. 

I corrected to bump instead of bounce. Anyway, electromagnetic force can cause both attraction and repulsion, so definitely it's not that, but it can be something to cause a repulsion. Why not? It would contradict something we observed?  How are neutrino doing it?

In my model a repulsion is needed, otherwise DM particles that stick (and buildup) to a fast moving baryonic particle would remain there after the particle stops, which is not the case.

 

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

Can you tell me why there are so many dark particles in your proposal, as compared to normal matter particles?

Excellent question. 

It implies that the particles would have very low mass, like neutrinos. That in turn, the implies that they would be moving at nearly the speed of light (like neutrinos). But neutrinos have been ruled out because the distribution of dark matter tells us that it is “cold” - ie not moving at relativistic speeds. 

2 minutes ago, DanMP said:

I corrected to bump instead of bounce. Anyway, electromagnetic force can cause both attraction and repulsion, so definitely it's not that, but it can be something to cause a repulsion. Why not? It would contradict something we observed?  How are neutrino doing it?

In my model a repulsion is needed, otherwise DM particles that stick (and buildup) to a fast moving baryonic particle would remain there after the particle stops, which is not the case.

 

And that’s my point, your gas/particles are required to have various properties that don’t match those of dark matter. 

So, even if some sort of gas could produce the effects you claim (which I don’t believe is possible) that gas is not the cosmologists’ dark matter. 

[DanMP]

37 minutes ago, Strange said:

It implies that the particles would have very low mass, ...

... the distribution of dark matter tells us that it is “cold” - ie not moving at relativistic speeds. 

So far in agreement with my model.

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

And that’s my point, your gas/particles are required to have various properties that don’t match those of dark matter. 

Really? Various properties that don’t match?

We know very little about DM. How can you be so sure that this rejection property is not present? I asked:

50 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Why not? It would contradict something we observed?  How are neutrino doing it?

You didn't answer.

[studiot]

30 minutes ago, DanMP said:

You didn't answer.

 

Nor did you!

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Can you tell me why there are so many dark particles in your proposal, as compared to normal matter particles?

I ask this because you are proposing that (your) dark particles are everywhere and basically 'fill all space' , including the mostly empty space in atoms.

Normal matter is much more sparse and normal space is largely devoid of normal matter.

 

[Strange]

59 minutes ago, DanMP said:

We know very little about DM. How can you be so sure that this rejection property is not present?

I think you underestimate how much is known. If there were some sort of repulsive force like this then the distribution of dark matter would be different from particles that only interact via gravity.

Run a simulation and see...

59 minutes ago, DanMP said:

You didn't answer.

Bouncing (or bumping) only happens if there is some sort of interaction like the electromagnetic force.

59 minutes ago, DanMP said:

How are neutrino doing it?

They aren't. They pass through matter as if it weren't there. They could pass through light years of lead without noticing. (And they don't interact with each other, either.) The same has to be true of dark matter (for the reason given above).

The only reason we can detect a handful of neutrinos from the sun, for example, is because there are billions and billions passing every second. And the failed attempts to detect dark matter particles suggest they interact even less. 

p.s. There was another thread recently claiming that "displaced dark matter is curved spacetime". The thread is now in Trash and the poster banned because he has posted the same thing many, many times but is never able to get any further than just repeating that claim more and more emotionally. So thanks for the constructive discussion on this idea. As you can tell, I think it is wrong for all sorts of reasons. Some of those are quite hard to explain, so I look forward to trying when I have more time ... (Sorry to keep saying that!)

Edited August 25, 2018 by Strange

[DanMP]

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

Nor did you!

Sorry, I actually answered, but something went wrong and couldn't submit it.  Then I noticed that Strange answered even better.

My answer was: "I don't know. It is hard to grasp, I know, but it is not impossible.".

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

we can detect a handful of neutrinos

I knew that. That's why I asked. I found here that:

Quote

In a neutral current interaction, the neutrino enters and then leaves the detector after having transferred some of its energy and momentum to a target particle. If the target particle is charged and sufficiently light (e.g. an electron), it may be accelerated to a relativistic speed and consequently emit Cherenkov radiation, which can be observed directly. 

It sounds like a collision, but they said something about weak interaction.

Anyway, what do you think it would happen if one DM particle goes straight towards another? It would pass through?!?

I think I was wrong here:

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

In my model a repulsion is needed, otherwise DM particles that stick (and buildup) to a fast moving baryonic particle would remain there after the particle stops, which is not the case.

The particles would fall off. No rejection, nor attraction is o.k.. Still, collision is needed. DM particle going through other particle would be a problem.

43 minutes ago, Strange said:

thanks for the constructive discussion

I thank you.

[DanMP]

1 hour ago, DanMP said:

It sounds like a collision, but they said something about weak interaction

Now it hit me: WIMP was considered as a possible candidate for a DM particle. Why not a Weakly Interacting Extremely Light Particle?

No wonder that DM can not be detected with WIMP detectors. It also moves slowly, unlike neutrino ... Dead end  That's why, ideas like my DMR here, should be investigated properly ...

By the way, if you want my predictions to be more accurate, and also to see if my theory is better than current relativity, in the same process, use GR to calculate if the predicted "effects" are as I said would be. As I wrote many times, my theory is still using mainstream relativity mathematics. Applied correctly, should yield good results.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

Sorry, I actually answered, but something went wrong and couldn't submit it.  Then I noticed that Strange answered even better.

My answer was: "I don't know. It is hard to grasp, I know, but it is not impossible.".

10 minutes ago, DanMP said:

As I wrote many times, my theory is still using mainstream relativity mathematics.

Yet when I tried some simple mathematics, you did not answer.

On 24/08/2018 at 1:57 PM, studiot said:

 

Can you not offer mathematical formula or procedure to determine this?

I say this because of several of your replies.

 

 

Not at all, though one dimensional can be linear.

A one dimensional equation of motion that is linear would be s = vt

Where s is distance, t is time and v is velocity.

This is amenable to special relativity.

An equation of motion of the form

s = ut + 0.5 ft² is non linear and not amenable to special relativity,

Where additional letters stand for u = initial velocity, f = acceleration.

 

As a matter of interest the equation

s = vt + c

Where c is a constant is also amenable to special relativity and is called affine.

 

So that's now two aspects of your theory you haven't answered.

 

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

Sorry, I actually answered, but something went wrong and couldn't submit it.  Then I noticed that Strange answered even better.

My answer was: "I don't know. It is hard to grasp, I know, but it is not impossible.".

 

How is what Strange wrote an answer?

He suggested fast moving particles but you are suggesting slow moving ones.

 

You theory of touching unseen particles reminds me of Maxwell's mechanical model of the aether.
Interestingly this model actually fitted all the known equations of Maxwell's time.

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Now it hit me: WIMP was considered as a possible candidate for a DM particle. Why not a Weakly Interacting Extremely Light Particle?

This was one of the early possibilities. That is why neutrons were considered a candidate. The trouble is that if particles have very little mass then giving them even tiny amounts of energy means they move at near light speed. 

If these particles were somehow created with nearly zero kinetic energy then they would be moving slowly. But as soon as they interact (as yours do) they would be accelerated to near light speed. So they can’t be dark matter. 

28 minutes ago, DanMP said:

By the way, if you want my predictions to be more accurate, and also to see if my theory is better than current relativity, in the same process, use GR to calculate if the predicted "effects" are as I said would be. As I wrote many times, my theory is still using mainstream relativity mathematics. Applied correctly, should yield good results.

I have seen this so often, for many different ideas: “my model is completely different but uses the same mathematics as GR.”

I’m afraid that just doesn’t wash. You need to prove (mathematically) that interactions with a gas can be described in terms of the geometry of a 4D pseudo-Riemannian manifold. 

[beecee]

10 hours ago, Strange said:

The reason is that DM only interacts gravitationally.

"Normal" matter also interacts via electromagnetic forces (the particles bump into each other). This allows it to cool down and form small, dense clumps like stars and planets.

Dark matter requires much longer to form loose, large scale structures.

We know this because the initial hypothesis for dark matter is that it only interacts gravitationally (hence "dark"). And it turns out in that case, you naturally get the density distribution required to reproduce the rotation curves we see. If it behaved like a [baryonic] gas, then ti would collapse (like the other material in the galaxy) to form structures paralleling (or oven overlaying) the normal matter structures in the galaxy.

There is other evidence supportive of this, for example that simulations of the formation of the large scale structure of the universe only work when dark matter (that only interacts gravitationally) mis added to the mix in the observed proportion.

 

10 hours ago, DanMP said:

Normal matter particles have more means to interact with each other, like electromagnetic force, etc. DM particles appear not able to do more than bump into each other. More important, in order to have rotation, you have to have an angular momentum .. 

OK, I accept that I was inadvertently forgetting about the EMFs...So then with this inherent inability, it would mean no cohesion and build up, so I see no reason why it would  congregate around any BH. It would simply, or should simply just fall in not as claimed here..."so the darkmosphere rotates, more or less"...And of course there is no way we can tell a baryonic matter BH, from a DM BH, or one with a mixture of both.

10 hours ago, Strange said:

I really do want to get back to some of the details in the OP and the later posts but I am on holiday and so only have very little time!

I would go back to the "claims" re spacetime and spacetime curvature as evidenced and required by GR.

 

[DanMP]

13 hours ago, studiot said:

Yet when I tried some simple mathematics, you did not answer.

It was not really related to my theory. And your questions on that matter were pointless, as my assumptions were consistent with the results of Hafele-Keating type experiments.

I don't have time to answer all the questions, so I'm selecting what I think is meaningful/important with respect to my theory.

13 hours ago, Strange said:

... That is why neutrons were considered a candidate. The trouble is that if particles have very little mass then giving them even tiny amounts of energy means they move at near light speed. 

If these particles were somehow created with nearly zero kinetic energy then they would be moving slowly. But as soon as they interact (as yours do) they would be accelerated to near light speed. So they can’t be dark matter

My DM particles are always and promptly re-emitting the photons (see the model), possibly because the absorption is forbidden by conservation laws (of energy and momentum - search in my Fizeau-Sagnac thread: "together with the rest of the atom"), so they are not accelerated, their energy and speed are not increased (excepting the gravitational pull).

13 hours ago, Strange said:

I’m afraid that just doesn’t wash. You need to prove (mathematically) that interactions with a gas can be described in terms of the geometry of a 4D pseudo-Riemannian manifold. 

Why?

9 hours ago, beecee said:

I would go back to the "claims" re spacetime and spacetime curvature as evidenced and required by GR.

No, spacetime and spacetime curvature were not evidenced. Spacetime is just a part of a mathematical model. What is required is to explain experimental evidences and I did that.

The mathematical model is valid, as valid as a topographical map, but not evidenced. You can't see contour lines in the mountains, but you can imagine and use them.

Edited August 26, 2018 by DanMP

[beecee]

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

INo, spacetime and spacetime curvature were not evidenced. Spacetime is just a part of a mathematical model. What is required is to explain experimental evidences and I did that.

The mathematical model is valid, as valid as a topographical map, but not evidenced. You can't see contour lines in the mountains, but you can imagine and use them.

It certainly is evidenced and continues to be evidenced with the latest discovery/prediction of gravitational waves, and as evidenced as is the reality of magnetic fields and scientific models.

Edited August 26, 2018 by beecee

[studiot]

5 hours ago, DanMP said:

19 hours ago, studiot said:

Yet when I tried some simple mathematics, you did not answer.

It was not really related to my theory. And your questions on that matter were pointless, as my assumptions were consistent with the results of Hafele-Keating type experiments.

I don't have time to answer all the questions, so I'm selecting what I think is meaningful/important with respect to my theor

It was most certainly directly related to your statements.

Furthermore it was designed to help you.

However you have chosen the path of contempt.

You have not only wasted a substantial amount of my time offering useful comment but you are also in direct defiance of forum rules.

This has thus been reported.

[swansont]

8 hours ago, DanMP said:

 I don't have time to answer all the questions, so I'm selecting what I think is meaningful/important with respect to my theory.

!

Moderator Note

This is a tenuous path. If it's relevant, you need to respond to it, otherwise it can be considered soapboxing (a violation of rule 2.8). And if you are not responding to inquiries, owing to time constraints, you must also not have time to post new material. Again, that would be soapboxing.

 

Also, I'm not seeing anything in the way of a mathematical model. You need that and/or testable predictions and/or some kind of evidence in support of an idea to sustain a discussion here.

 

[DanMP]

22 hours ago, beecee said:

It certainly is evidenced and continues to be evidenced with the latest discovery/prediction of gravitational waves, and as evidenced as is the reality of magnetic fields and scientific models.

Gravitational waves can be explained in another way. When I'll have more time, I may start a new thread, with a DM based explanation of gravity, and discuss there GWs.

To better understand my topographical map analogy, I may say/pretend that, while walking between point A and point B, I'm getting more tired because I'm crossing contour lines, not because I'm climbing a mountain, against gravity. In the same way, we say/pretend that spacetime curvature is the reason for gravitational pull ... As I said, as long as it works, we can use this spacetime, but it's not the best way to explain gravity. However, for now, it is the best way to calculate it. And, with c postulated or explained as being invariant, the results are the same. The math is the same.

19 hours ago, studiot said:

It was most certainly directly related to your statements.

Furthermore it was designed to help you.

However you have chosen the path of contempt.

You have not only wasted a substantial amount of my time offering useful comment but you are also in direct defiance of forum rules.

This has thus been reported.

I am really sorry for this, but I failed to see how that part of your post/comment was related to the validity of my statements regarding the tower-airplane twins experiment. If you elaborate on this, I'll try to answer.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, DanMP said:

Gravitational waves can be explained in another way. When I'll have more time, I may start a new thread, with a DM based explanation of gravity, and discuss there GWs.In the same way, we say/pretend that spacetime curvature is the reason for gravitational pull ... As I said, as long as it works, we can use this spacetime, but it's not the best way to explain gravity. However, for now, it is the best way to calculate it. And, with c postulated or explained as being invariant, the results are the same. The math is the same.

Certainly without any doubt spacetime in the presence of mass, is the best way to describe gravity, be it warped, curved, twisted or in the form of GWs. We also of course see that spacetime curvature evidenced by gravitational lensing. At best your hypothetical just appears to possibily mirror that of GR spacetime...on other words superfluous.