Alternative to Dark Energy & Dark Matter

[G Anthony]

If one carefully reads the papers submitted to ArXiv astrophysics, one sees that Saul Perlmutter's and Adam Riess's supernova research groups were not independent and that they were in serious communication. Perlmutter and Riess actually wrote a paper together.

 

They say that the data that the two groups got regarding the distances to supernovae and other bright extremely distant objects was not concordant at first. In order to make the two data sets conform, they admit that they had to apply an "adjustment". This artificial factor was used to bring the data of one set into alignment with the other so that a smooth plot could be made that included all the data points. The sense of this artiface alone is the sole "evidence" that they cite for an accelerating rate of expansion of the universe. They might have applied the adhjustment to the other data set in the opposite sense. Then, the universe expansion rate would have been seen as decelerating. There was a choice to be made. A cynic might hazard a guess as to why they made the choice that they did.

 

In college, we had to write laboratory reports on the experiments that we did in lab. We were warned against manufacturing data. Our professors all said that this kind of "fudging" is a big "NO NO". Ethical standards are not just for students. Still, as professionals who are good scientists, Permutter and Riess no doubt think that they were perfectly well justified in applying their adjsustment factor and did so in all honesty. But, the result is the same.

 

Furthermore, Mordehai Milgrom's discovery of the MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics) effect does not recognize that spiral galaxies almost always contain supermassive black holes in their nuclei. Black holes are enormous relativistic point masses with infinite density. Such "singularities" must have singular gravitational fields also. Such fields decline as 1/r - hyperbolically, not as 1/r^2 or parabolically, as assumed by Newton's Law of gravity. The difference between the hyperbolic gravitational potential and the Newtonian parabolic one accounts for Milgrom's residual centripetal acceleration constant that he found for stars near the peripheries of spiral galaxies. So, the invention of unfalsifiable "Dark Matter" to acount for the MOND effect is as unnecessary as the construction of the Dark Energy ediface to account for putative "acceleration".

 

So, given the doubtful nature of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, what do we do about the "missing mass" necessary to account for the flatness apparent in the anisotropy shown by the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB)? The easiest way is to postulate that the universe is about 22 times as massive as our little telescopes can discern. The signal strength, statistical distribution and identifiable extra contributions (as from the SZ effect) to the CMB implies that our current inventory of matter and energy in the universe accounts for only about 4.5% of its total mass. So, 100/4.5 = 22.2, that is, the mass of the universe must be around 22 times as big as we can tell from our limited perspective here on Earth.

 

If the universe is that much bigger and more massive, it would account for the CMB characteristics, the red-shift effects, the gravitational lensing effects and the SZ effects that are being used to give credibility to acceleration and Dark Energy.

 

In other words, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are subject to Occam's Razor as mere whiskers on the chin of astrophysics.

 

It should be pointed out that there have been monumental scams in science before. Piltdown Man and Cold Fusion come to mind. Remember, many reputable scientists fell for these frauds completely for long periods of time. Clearly, we must be wary of any kind of massive pseudoscience which may still be going on today!

[pantheory]

G Anthony,

 

The overall dark energy data of type 1a supernova data have many error factors within them but through the numerous sources, it should be realized that there was no scam going on. Perlmutter and others were trying to show the validity of type 1a supernova as standard candles as a guide to assist astronomers and to help confirm the cosmological constant.

 

He also considered the hypothesis that the universe might be slowing down in a Big Crunch scenario. What he finally concluded was the opposite. I have gone over all the data and done the recalculation of it using my own formulas from my own cosmological model, but quite similar to the Hubble formula, but when using my formulas dark energy goes away -- accordingly does not exist.

 

http://www.pantheory...ical-papers.pdf

 

Dark matter is a different question. One can find two spiral galaxies that have a similar appearance concerning the age of their stars, their forms, their diameters, their estimated mass, the estimated size of their central black holes, etc. After an extended period of telescopic study one might realize the the rotation velocity of one galaxy rotates much faster relative to the background field of galaxies, than the other. Not only that, you might also observe that the internal rotation velocity of the stars of each have a quite different profile concerning their relative internal rotation curves. Upon observing this you would realize that no gravity formulation could have ever predicted these rotation velocities for these galaxies based upon the standard criteria because their general appearance is very similar. So instead you postulate that there must be unseen matter within and surrounding the galaxy to account for these rotation rates. You also realize that matter alone will not do the trick. You not only need 20 times as much matter that you can observe for one galaxy and 5 times as much as you observe for the other, you also realize that most of this matter must lie outside the observable galaxy. But the worst of it is that you must also provide greater momentum to the unseen matter for your models than the momentum you can observe withing the galaxies, and each galaxy would require different amounts of momentum for this unseen matter. Now once you know the rotation velocities of these galaxies you can throw into the model the supposed missing matter and momentum and presto. Welcome to the world of dark matter and retrodiction (predicting a quantity after it is already known to begin with).

 

It's not accordingly just a different formulation of gravity that is needed, I believe it is a different model of gravity that is needed that could allow for galactic vortex currents, and fluid dynamics for minuscule Planck-size field particles too small to behave as matter. I expect an aether-like model of pushing gravity like my own model, to eventually replace GR and the present dark matter hypotheses.

Edited September 2, 2011 by pantheory

[G Anthony]

G Anthony,

 

The overall dark energy data of type 1a supernova data have many error factors within them but through the numerous sources, it should be realized that there was no scam going on. Perlmutter and others were trying to show the validity of type 1a supernova as standard candles as a guide to assist astronomers and to help confirm the cosmological constant.

 

He also considered the hypothesis that the universe might be slowing down in a Big Crunch scenario. What he finally concluded was the opposite. I have gone over all the data and done the recalculation of it using my own formulas from my own cosmological model, but quite similar to the Hubble formula, but when using my formulas dark energy goes away -- accordingly does not exist.

 

http://www.pantheory...ical-papers.pdf

 

Dark matter is a different question. One can find two spiral galaxies that have a similar appearance concerning the age of their stars, their forms, their diameters, their estimated mass, the estimated size of their central black holes, etc. After an extended period of telescopic study one might realize the the rotation velocity of one galaxy rotates much faster relative to the background field of galaxies, than the other. Not only that, you might also observe that the internal rotation velocity of the stars of each have a quite different profile concerning their relative internal rotation curves. Upon observing this you would realize that no gravity formulation could have ever predicted these rotation velocities for these galaxies based upon the standard criteria because their general appearance is very similar. So instead you postulate that there must be unseen matter within and surrounding the galaxy to account for these rotation rates. You also realize that matter alone will not do the trick. You not only need 20 times as much matter that you can observe for one galaxy and 5 times as much as you observe for the other, you also realize that most of this matter must lie outside the observable galaxy. But the worst of it is that you must also provide greater momentum to the unseen matter for your models than the momentum you can observe withing the galaxies, and each galaxy would require different amounts of momentum for this unseen matter. Now once you know the rotation velocities of these galaxies you can throw into the model the supposed missing matter and momentum and presto. Welcome to the world of dark matter and retrodiction (predicting a quantity after it is already known to begin with).

 

It's not accordingly just a different formulation of gravity that is needed, I believe it is a different model of gravity that is needed that could allow for galactic vortex currents, and fluid dynamics for minuscule Planck-size field particles too small to behave as matter. I expect an aether-like model of pushing gravity like my own model, to eventually replace GR and the present dark matter hypotheses.

 

As far as dark matter is concerned, I report only what Milgrom says he discovered after carefully considering data from many many spiral galaxies. I am saying only that he ignores the fact that nearly all spiral galaxies and most other types have supermassive black holes embedded in them. This makes a huge difference. Black holes and the whole mass of the galactic disk will behave like a non-Newtonian entity having a gravitational potential that falls off as 1/r, not as 1/r². Comparing a graph of this hyperbolic versus a Newtonian parabolic potential one sees that there is a virtually constant difference at large r. This is the source of Milgrom's residual acceleration constant that he says he sees in most of the galaxies he studied. I am not arguing with Milgrom's findings. Far from it. I say he is probably right. But, he needs to consider the implications of the existence of relativistic supermassive black holes. This comment is just that, a comment on the cosmological meaning of relativity in regard to black holes in galaxies. Milgrom proposes a new model for gravity. He calls it modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND). But, MOND will require a rewrite of general relativity, one of the most validated theories in all science (only quantum mechanics is better verified). My comment leaves GR intact. It is simple, direct and jibes with the facts while being more parsimonious than MOND.

 

One does not observe the rotation of galaxies directly against the background of other galaxies. They rotate too slowly. One observes red-shifts from stars in different regions of each galaxy. Plotting rotational velocities got this way versus distance from the center of a galaxy, one should see a monotonic drop in velocity as one approaches large r. Instead, velocity reaches a constant plateau. This contradicts Newton's Law of Gravity. Milgrom wants to add his tiny, residual acceleration constant to Newton's Law. All I am saying is that it would be better to take into account the non-Newtonian hyperbolic black hole gravitational potential that simply must exist in almost all spiral galaxies and also in other types of galaxies that may harbor black holes. Galaxies that do not happen to show the MOND effect probably do not have supermassive black holes, or else their black holes have formed so recently that there has not been enough time for the effect to propagate all the way to and beyond the periphery.

 

Yes, Perlmutter and Riess both depended on the same Lambda Cold Dark Matter model of the universe that uses the Friedmann equations as a basis. So, they really didn't have to coordinate their results. But, they did. And, they used the model to predict the model, the ultimate retrodiction. The same thing is done when cosmologists use the model to interpret gravitational lensing effects, the SZ effect and other observations that they say give credibility to dark energy and dark matter. I do not say there is any attempt at fraud here. In fact, I say that they are clearly acting as honest scientists. But, the scientists who reported positive cold fusion results were all honest too. They did not realize that there were inherent flaws in the neutron detection devices that they employed to observe "fusion" in deuterium oxide electrolysis cells using palladium electrodes. Honest scientists fall for pseudoscience too. But, fudge is fudge and no-one is immune to wishfull thinking. Perlmutter and Riess wished for a more exciting result and they got it.

[ajb]

You are absolutely right not to base all your trust in one or two papers. So don't.

 

I Zehavi and A Dekel 1999 Nature 401 252.

 

Blake D. Sherwin et.al. 2011 Phys.Rev.Lett.107:021302.

 

Cao, Shuo; Zhu, Zong-Hong; Zhao, Ren. 2011 Physical Review D, vol. 84, Issue 2.

 

Li, Xiao-Dong; Li, Song; Wang, Shuang; Zhang, Wen-Shuai; Huang, Qing-Guo; Li, Miao. 2011 Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, Issue 07, pp. 011.

 

 

Mörtsell, Edvard; Clarkson, Chris 2009. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, Issue 01, pp. 044.

 

 

And the list goes on and on. Take look at the citations for the Riess paper. The evidence for an accelerating expansion is overwhelming.

[pantheory]

G Anthony

 

Milgrom's model is much closer to the rotatation curve of the Milky Way than the dark matter profile provides. I think this is an indication that he is onto something. As I said in my posting above #2, that Milgrom's equations cannot solve the problem however, not Newton's or GR. One particular problem with Milgom's model is that there is no theoretical justification for it.

 

Based upon my own analysis I think there are a number of unidentified variables involved with spiral galaxy rotation, not something that just dark matter can explain. I think the trick will be to come up with a rationale for a new formulation for gravity, and that the formulation used for spiral galaxies will include three or more presently unknown variables which when plugged in (unrelated to the present variables of mass, etc.), the formulas will work every time within a tolerance range, concerning spiral galaxies. The problem for this development other than the justification, I think will be to identify what these presently unidentified variables are. I think these variable are related to several factors one of which you mentioned such as the mass and appearance of the central black hole.

 

Other factors presently not considered which I think are necessary, first concern the true mechanics of gravity (a mechanical explanation, such as vortex mechanics, fluid dynamics, etc.) which I think is presently needed and missing. Next might be the relative position and orientation of the galaxy in the cluster, the orientation of the adjacent galaxies, the rotation rate and relative orientations of the cluster, an estimate of the unseen physical characteristics of the galaxy, etc. The whole process is an estimation but in time I think we will be able to come closer than the present dark matter idea. If dark matter is an aether of Planck size particles, which I expect it to be, we will never be able to observe individual constituents. My hope is instead they will focus on a better understanding of gravity and that the warped space idea will be replaced by flat space and dark matter currents (an aether). I think that at galactic scales gravity will forever be an estimate with tolerances, something like the quantum world which will always involve statistical tolerances. For this new gravity model I favor a Pushing Gravity model, maybe something like my own model

Edited September 2, 2011 by pantheory

[Gary Anthony Kent]

G Anthony

 

Milgrom's model is much closer to the rotatation curve of the Milky Way than the dark matter profile provides. I think this is an indication that he is onto something. As I said in my posting above #2, that Milgrom's equations cannot solve the problem however, not Newton's or GR. One particular problem with Milgom's model is that there is no theoretical justification for it.

 

Based upon my own analysis I think there are a number of unidentified variables involved with spiral galaxy rotation, not something that just dark matter can explain. I think the trick will be to come up with a rationale for a new formulation for gravity, and that the formulation used for spiral galaxies will include three or more presently unknown variables which when plugged in (unrelated to the present variables of mass, etc.), the formulas will work every time within a tolerance range, concerning spiral galaxies. The problem for this development other than the justification, I think will be to identify what these presently unidentified variables are. I think these variable are related to several factors one of which you mentioned such as the mass and appearance of the central black hole.

 

Other factors presently not considered which I think are necessary, first concern the true mechanics of gravity (a mechanical explanation, such as vortex mechanics, fluid dynamics, etc.) which I think is presently needed and missing. Next might be the relative position and orientation of the galaxy in the cluster, the orientation of the adjacent galaxies, the rotation rate and relative orientations of the cluster, an estimate of the unseen physical characteristics of the galaxy, etc. The whole process is an estimation but in time I think we will be able to come closer than the present dark matter idea. If dark matter is an aether of Planck size particles, which I expect it to be, we will never be able to observe individual constituents. My hope is instead they will focus on a better understanding of gravity and that the warped space idea will be replaced by flat space and dark matter currents (an aether). I think that at galactic scales gravity will forever be an estimate with tolerances, something like the quantum world which will always involve statistical tolerances. For this new gravity model I favor a Pushing Gravity model, maybe something like my own model

 

You betcha there's no justification. That's why the hyperbolic Black-Hole galactic gravitational field effect, HBH-GGFE, is so important. It needs no theoretical justification beyond a brief appeal to general relativity and to pure geometry. Therefore, all models need to take it into account. Milgrom's work is good work. He is a pro. But, neither of us buy his call for modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND)!

Edited September 15, 2011 by swansont
fix quote tag