Source-Sink Theory

[Ghideon]

14 hours ago, sstman said:

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. 

That means that a system consisting of two particles, one "normal" and one "dark", will accelerate? Question: How does that affect conservation of momentum? 

On a larger scale: what happens to massive objects that get close to the DM halo according to your ideas? When for instance an intergalactic star is getting close the outside edge of a halo of a galaxy, is the star deflected by the halo? What happens to any DM that is affected by the intergalactic star's gravity? 

 

[joigus]

On 5/16/2021 at 2:04 AM, sstman said:

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.

It's dark energy that pushes everything away, not dark matter. Dark matter does the opposite. Google for "dark matter caused the formation of galaxies". Dark matter is thought to be essential for structure formation in the very early universe.

[studiot]

Apologies, something seems to have gone wrong with the Math tags

In my last post, the second equation should read

[math]g = \frac{{force}}{{mass}} = \frac{{mass*acceleration}}{{mass}} = acceleration[/math]

 

[sstman]

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.

[beecee]

54 minutes ago, sstman said:

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. 

Space is real....time is real...spacetime is real, but none are physical entities. Something does not need to be physical to be real,  the way I see things at least. 

[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.

[MigL]

2 hours ago, sstman said:

Conservation of momentum goes out the window.  That's a tough pill to swallow, I know. 

I'm sorry, I'm with Ghideon on this.
Exotic matter with negative mass, and repulsive gravity, leads to the run-away problem, where one mass is attracted to the other, while the other is repelled by the one.
Both spontaneously move/accelerate in the same direction with no nput of energy.

Conservation of momentum goes out the window, indeed !
How much of currently accepted, observational Physics are tou willing to 'throw out the window', in support of your shaky ( at best ) conjecture ???

[Ghideon]

14 hours ago, sstman said:

Conservation of momentum goes out the window. 

Ok. A consequence of throwing out conservation of momentum is that Newton, Lagrange, Hamilton, Noether and others probably also goes out the window. Your claim seem to imply that empty space must be inhomogeneous or anisotropic at small scales*. 
When none of Newton and others are left to base your ideas upon, what new and alternative physics do you propose as a starting point?

 

*) I learned this from @joigus, hope I got it right in the context of this topic.

[swansont]

15 hours ago, sstman said:

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.

!

Moderator Note

No.

You aren't complying with the rules about posting the material here (2.7) and our speculations rules say "Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof"

You haven't done this, and you are basing your speculation upon other speculation that also has no evidence. If you want to base an idea on antigravity that violates conservation of momentum, provide a model for how this antigravity works. If you can't do that, there is no point in building a model on top of it.

 

 

[joigus]

23 hours ago, sstman said:

Ghideon: Conservation of momentum goes out the window.  That's a tough pill to swallow, I know.

And I won't swallow it. It's a non-starter, rather than a tough pill to swallow.

Exactly as @Ghideon says, that would imply that empty space has special places and special directions, and all the edifice of physics would be knocked down. Either that, or the Lagrangian formalism goes out the window; and the Lagrangian formalism works for all of physics: Classical mechanics, classical field theory, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory.

I'd rather give up quantum mechanics or general relativity than conservation of momentum. And it's passed all experimental tests.

[studiot]

On 5/16/2021 at 11:55 PM, sstman said:

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:

 

I'm still trying to kep it simple and walk before we try to run.

 

You have said nothing about the relative magnitudes of the proposed force interactions.

You surely know that atoms of normal matter are not held together by gravity.
At the scale of atoms, the force of gravity is many, many orders of magnitude weaker than the electrostatic forces which bind the particles together in to atoms.
So the force of gravity plays little or no part in the internal mechanism of atoms.

So why should this repulsive interaction force be strong enough to disperse dark matter particles ?