Dynamic Gravity theory to explain dark matter, cosmic ray energy, etc.

[Markus Hanke]

10 hours ago, kba said:

Actually, phenomena, you had described as gravitational exactly aren't connected with gravity.

The phenomena I listed are demonstrably due to the presence of gravitational sources, so of course they are gravitational in nature. You don’t get (eg) a Shapiro delay, or Thirring-Lense precession of gyroscopes, or any of the other examples, without the presence of energy-momentum distributions such as a planet. You claiming that this isn’t so is...’bizarre’ is the only word I can think of.

10 hours ago, kba said:

Accordingly to Dynamic Gravity (DG) the gravity is a force

It is easy to show that no forced-based model can ever accurately describe the correct degrees of freedom for real-world gravity, irrespective of its details. This is why Newtonian gravity only works as an approximation in the weak field regime.

For one thing, the source term for gravity is a rank-2 tensor (this follows from Noether’s theorem), so whatever dynamical quantity you couple to it has to be rank-2 also. This rules out vector field models such as the one you propose, but is fully consistent with GR.

Furthermore, a model for gravity based on forces alone predicts incorrect polarisation states for gravitational radiation. A rank-1 theory means that these polarisation states are inclined at 90 degree angles - which is not what we observe. You need a rank-2 theory to obtain the observed 45 degree angle between quadrupole polarisation states - which is, again, consistent with GR. This is a basic result from general field theory, and not exclusive to just gravity.

And then of course there’s the trivial fact that accelerometers in free fall always read exactly zero - so no forces act on freefalling bodies, yet they are obviously still affected by gravity.

10 hours ago, kba said:

and it isn't something static which influences to massless particles

That massless particles are indeed influenced by gravitational sources is an observational fact.

10 hours ago, kba said:

Accordingly to DG, the GR isn't a gravity theory, because it doesn't describe the Gravity as a force (which, actually, is a force).

Unfortunately your idea is falsified by the above points - gravity cannot be a force in the Newtonian sense, because that’s simply not consistent with what we observe.

10 hours ago, kba said:

the Dark matter, and the acceleration of cosmic rays, which wasn't predicted by GR.

I think you got this all backwards - of course GR predicts DM. That’s the whole point of postulating DM in the first place. We can see based on observational data that there are various gravitational dynamics happening that are not due solely to baryonic matter that we can see; hence we deduce, based on GR, that there are additional sources of gravity that don’t appear in the visual or radio spectra. That’s a solid prediction.

Now we are in the process of checking this prediction. If, in due time, no such thing as DM is found, then we know that GR isn’t the correct model on larger scales, and we can look at appropriate modifications to the theory. That’s how the scientific method works.

However, what you propose as an alternative is trivially wrong on fundamental grounds, so it’s a non-starter. It doesn’t even work locally, never even mind on larger scales.

[kba]

10 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

The phenomena I listed are demonstrably due to the presence of gravitational sources, so of course they are gravitational in nature. You don’t get (eg) a Shapiro delay, or Thirring-Lense precession of gyroscopes, or any of the other examples, without the presence of energy-momentum distributions such as a planet. You claiming that this isn’t so is...’bizarre’ is the only word I can think of.

Did you saw what phenomena in your list I had accented by bold fonts? Only with adjective "gravitational".

They are connected with light distribution.

Actually, gravitation (accordingly to DG) has two kind of action - an attraction and a repulsion. That's why it cannot to influe to the light distribution. The mass(energy) can do it, but not the gravity.

10 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

gravity cannot be a force in the Newtonian sense, because that’s simply not consistent with what we observe.

Do we observe extraspeed for stars in the galaxies peripheria? Do we observe ultra high energy protons in the cosmic rays? Do we observe "knee" shift in the energy spectrum of cosmic rays?

And for the GR:

Do we register gravitons? Do we register DM particles?

Edited July 29, 2022 by kba

[MigL]

If I could, I would give your post many +1s, Markus.
Unfortunately kba is so 'obsessed' with his pet idea, that it'll be totally disregarded by him.

[kba]

10 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I think you got this all backwards - of course GR predicts DM

Actually the DM phenomena is stated as deviation from Newton's law, for the stars' and galaxies' speed curves.

The prediction of DM looks like post-predictions for hypothetical particles which wasn't registered in any experiments during about 100 years of DM, from the thirties.

Edited July 29, 2022 by kba

[Markus Hanke]

2 hours ago, kba said:

Do we observe extraspeed for stars in the galaxies peripheria?

Sure. But that’s not due to forces, because these stars in free fall.

2 hours ago, kba said:

Do we observe ultra high energy protons in the cosmic rays?

Of course. Coincidentally though this is not a gravitational phenomenon.

2 hours ago, kba said:

Do we observe "knee" shift in the energy spectrum of cosmic rays?

I don’t know what you mean by “knee shift” - can you provide a source?

2 hours ago, kba said:

Do we register gravitons?

GR is a purely classical theory, so it does not predict any gravitons.

2 hours ago, kba said:

Do we register DM particles?

I have explained this in my previous post. Also, GR only indicates that there is an additional source of gravity that is distributed in a certain way - it does not say anything about the nature of this source. In particular, GR does not say that DM is particulate matter.

The search for DM is currently underway, but not finding DM particles does not mean that DM isn’t there; there are options other than it being made of new particles.

Lastly, if it turns out that DM isn’t there, then that still doesn’t mean that GR is wrong - it means only that GR’s domain of applicability is limited to shorter scales, and needs to be modified for longer scales.

Either way, your idea is not a contender, since it is ruled out on fundamental grounds, as I’ve explained.

1 hour ago, kba said:

Actually the DM phenomena is stated as deviation from Newton's law, for the stars' and galaxies' speed curves.

This is what MOND tries to do - unfortunately the resulting model is inconsistent with observational data, so this approach does not work. It also requires extra vector and scalar fields, for which there is no evidence.

1 hour ago, kba said:

The prediction of DM looks like post-predictions for hypothetical particles

No, see above. DM is a prediction about there being additional sources of gravity, but GR says nothing about their nature. So it doesn’t predict new particles. How could it? It’s a purely classical model that has no concept of quantum fields.

[studiot]

I am not a cosmologist, and certainly give way on the formal detail to Markus (+1) although over the years I have seen cosmological theories come and go.

Here is a less formal 2022 summary of Dark Matter and Dark Energy from someone I respect greatly, Frank  Wilczek.

 

[kba]

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

I don’t know what you mean by “knee shift” - can you provide a source?

e.g. this one

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222660357_Models_of_the_Knee_in_the_Energy_Spectrum_of_Cosmic_Rays

Google search gives numerous links if you'd like to be more informed on that subject.

Actually, I hoped that you have wide knowledge in Astrophysics.

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

Coincidentally though this is not a gravitational phenomenon.

You say such because you are talking on a GR language.

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

Either way, your idea is not a contender, since it is ruled out on fundamental grounds, as I’ve explained.

Because fundamental grounds must be reinspected.

Dynamic gravity based on other grounds which declares that

"There aren't motions, in the Universe, without forces".

PS. thanks for attention and spended time.

Edited July 29, 2022 by kba

[studiot]

7 minutes ago, kba said:

Because fundamental grounds must be reinspected.

Dynamic gravity based on other grounds which declares that

"There aren't motions, in the Universe, without forces".

PS. thanks for attention and spended time.

 

So do you disagree with Newton's First Law ?

What is your definition of motion please ?

[kba]

55 minutes ago, studiot said:

What is your definition of motion please ?

Your question looks as phylosophic.

In term of Phylosophy, the Motion is a main property of Matter, by which the Matter demostates its relativity.

Edited July 29, 2022 by kba

[studiot]

5 minutes ago, kba said:

Your question looks as phylosophic.

In term of Phylosophy, the Motion is a main property of Matter, by which it demostates its relativity.

Perhaps it is philosophic, but it is not a trick question.

You talked about "fundamental grounds".

So I am trying to establish what are your fundamental grounds.

If by saying motion is the property by which it demonstrates its relativity  (I have shortened this to the important part)  I think in English we would say

All motion is relative to something other than the moving object.

I would agree with you.

 

That leaves my second question unanswered.

 

Are you aware of Newton's Laws of Motion ?

The first one says

N1 : A body will continue in its state of motion in a straight line, or of rest, unless acted upon by a force.

So once again please state whether you agree or disagree with this. ?

[kba]

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

A body will continue in its state of motion in a straight line, or of rest, unless acted upon by a force.

So once again please state whether you agree or disagree with this. ?

I disagree.

[studiot]

 

1 minute ago, kba said:

I disagree.

Thank you for your answer, now we are actually getting somewhere.

Since this is a speculation, not established Physics, you are entitled to posit a statement similar to

A body requires to be acted on by a force in order to move.

 

Of course as a speculation you will need to demonstrate predictions that result from applying this statement that can be checked by direct observation.

 

I will tell you now that this was the belief held for thousands of years before Newton.

Newton's great insight was to show that a body only requires an acting force to change its state of motion.

 

[kba]

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

Of course as a speculation you will need to demonstrate predictions that result from applying this statement that can be checked by direct observation.

I have such prediction.

[studiot]

12 minutes ago, kba said:

I have such prediction.

Fine so let us compare two examples.

You supply one example and I will  supply the other.

We can then work both examples in accordance with your laws and Newton's laws and compare.

Here is my example.

On my table sits the book I am reading.

It does not move, it just sits there.

It is midnight here so good night, I will look for your example and analysis of mine tomorrow.

Edited July 29, 2022 by studiot

[Markus Hanke]

10 hours ago, kba said:

Google search gives numerous links if you'd like to be more informed on that subject.

Actually, I hoped that you have wide knowledge in Astrophysics.

You had to get that in, didn’t you

Either way, I’m familiar with it under its original name Swordy-Abbasi spectrum, from when this was first published - but you seem to be right that it appears to be called “the knee” and “the ankle” nowadays. See, I learned something new today!

And no, my area of expertise is General Relativity (mostly its theoretical foundations), not HEPP, which is why I haven’t followed latest developments on this particular issue. Exactly why do you think this is even relevant to theories of gravity?

10 hours ago, kba said:

You say such because you are talking on a GR language.

Yes.

10 hours ago, kba said:

Because fundamental grounds must be reinspected.

The fundamental grounds are rock solid.

 

Edited July 30, 2022 by Markus Hanke

[kba]

#AmaterasuParticle is the next evidence for my theory after #OMGParticle. Should wait for next one? 😉

Edited November 26, 2023 by kba

[studiot]

On 7/29/2022 at 11:45 PM, kba said:

I have such prediction.

 

On 7/29/2022 at 11:57 PM, studiot said:

Fine so let us compare two examples.

You supply one example and I will  supply the other.

We can then work both examples in accordance with your laws and Newton's laws and compare.

Here is my example.

On my table sits the book I am reading.

It does not move, it just sits there.

It is midnight here so good night, I will look for your example and analysis of mine tomorrow.

 

And I am still waiting for you to complete your side of the bargain.

😀

[kba]

7 hours ago, studiot said:

  On 7/30/2022 at 4:57 AM, studiot said:

Fine so let us compare two examples.

You supply one example and I will  supply the other.

We can then work both examples in accordance with your laws and Newton's laws and compare.

Here is my example.

On my table sits the book I am reading.

It does not move, it just sits there.

It is midnight here so good night, I will look for your example and analysis of mine tomorrow.

I don't understand what do you mean with your example. Your book in the same time does move with your table arount the Earth's axis, around the Sun, around the Galaxy's center, etc.

Edited November 27, 2023 by kba

[studiot]

10 hours ago, kba said:

I don't understand what do you mean with your example. Your book in the same time does move with your table arount the Earth's axis, around the Sun, around the Galaxy's center, etc.

I thought we had agreed that all motion is relative to something other than the object itself.

You did not object when I asked you for a definition of motion and rephrased your reply in a more useful form.

You also replied that you disagreed with Newton's First Law.

Do you know what Newton's First Law states ?

The book on the table is not moving on or from the table, yet there are forces acting on it.

If i add another small force by pushing gently with my finger the book still does not move from the table, why is this ?

 

[kba]

12 hours ago, studiot said:

You also replied that you disagreed with Newton's First Law.

My interpretation of inertia law:

A body will not move, unless acted upon by a force.

Just compare with Newton's First Law.

Still, 

Quote

a body only requires an acting force to change its state of motion.

Edited November 28, 2023 by kba

[studiot]

19 hours ago, kba said:

My interpretation of inertia law:

A body will not move, unless acted upon by a force.

Just compare with Newton's First Law.

Which would be incorrect so you do, in fact disagree with Newton.

 

A body will continue in its state rest of uniform motion, in its right line,  unless acted on by a force.

Which boils down to

19 hours ago, kba said:

  Quote

a body only requires an acting force to change its state of motion.

 

And a change to its state of motion is defined as an acceleration, whether from rest or any form of actual motion, rectiliear or otherwise.

Note carefully the difference between what is needed to effect a change of motion and what will happen if no force is applied.

 

An associated question

If a force is applied to a body will it necessarily change its state of rest or motion ?

[kba]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

An associated question

If a force is applied to a body will it necessarily change its state of rest or motion ?

Yes, if this body is free.

4 hours ago, studiot said:

A body will continue in its state rest of uniform motion, in its right line,  unless acted on by a force

This declaration of Newton's First Law is absolutely incorrect. There is no uniform motion for free bodies. All of them or keep in rest, either moves with acceleration which you cannot register locally, at the short distances.

Edited November 29, 2023 by kba

[studiot]

8 hours ago, kba said:

Yes, if this body is free.

Would you not say the term isolated is better than free ?

A free body has a special significance in mechanics, that is usually associats with many forces acting on that body.

 

If we want to say 'free of all imposed forces' (which is what I think you mean) physicists would say isolated.

 

8 hours ago, kba said:

Yes, if this body is free.

This declaration of Newton's First Law is absolutely incorrect. There is no uniform motion for free bodies. All of them or keep in rest, either moves with acceleration which you cannot register locally, at the short distances.

Would you not agree that if we are going to propose a unversal rule, like your original hypothesis, we must be able to apply it universally ?

Even to systems that although we know of no actual instance, we would expect conform to all known laws  ?

 

So consider either a universe with only one single body in it

or alternatively one single body so far from any other body that it may be considered isolated ?

 

Can you describe the motion of such a body ?

 

[joigus]

On 11/26/2023 at 9:09 PM, kba said:

#AmaterasuParticle is the next evidence for my theory after #OMGParticle. Should wait for next one? 😉

Falacy:

1) Mainstream people think everything is OK with current state of physics

2) I have a new theory

3) Something new is found

Conclusion: I was right.

See any of the tens, probably hundreds of ways in which that reasoning could go wrong?

Starting with 1) and 2) being blatantly false...

[Bufofrog]

On 7/4/2022 at 7:28 AM, kba said:

I have a theory which explains the Gravity as dynamical force which appears only between moving particles.

The easiest way to understand your theory, I think, is to show us a simple calculation.

Could you use your theory to calculate the orbital period of the moon?  

Thanks.