Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #424145 > unrolled thread

New Dark Matter Theory - New book

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  New Dark Matter Theory - New book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-06 16:28 -0700
    Re: New Dark Matter Theory - New book The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-07 21:06 -0700
      Re: New Dark Matter Theory - New book The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-08 11:39 -0700
        Re: New Dark Matter Theory - New book The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-08 12:04 -0700
    Re: New Dark Matter Theory - New book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-10 09:33 -0500
      Re: New Dark Matter Theory - New book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-10 08:32 -0700
        Re: New Dark Matter Theory - New book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-11 10:42 -0500
          Re: New Dark Matter Theory - New book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-11 14:51 -0700
            Re: New Dark Matter Theory - New book Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-11 23:17 -0500
              Re: New Dark Matter Theory - New book "Edgar L. Owen" <Edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2017-07-12 02:52 -0700

#424145 — New Dark Matter Theory - New book

The Hubble expansion of space occurs only in intergalactic space. Space inside galaxies isn't expanding because it's gravitationally bound. (Wheeler, Misner, Thorne,, Gravitation, p. 719).

This uneven expansion of space should produce warps in space around galactic boundaries, and by relativity any warp in space is equivalent to a gravitational field. Thus these warps are the most reasonable explanation for the dark matter effect.

There are several important advantages to this theory:

1: The warps occur around galactic boundaries precisely where the dark matter effect occurs. But once created such DM fields can move around under gravitational interactions just like galaxies do.

2. It's a simple parsimonious explanation based only on established principles of relativity and requires no new undiscovered particles beyond the Standard Model.

3. It's automatically dark because it's not particle based.

4. It interacts only through the gravitational force as DM is known to do.

5. It's consistent with recent evidence that there was less DM in the early universe (http://www.eso.org/public/usa/news/eso1709/) since as space continually expands the amount of warping around galaxies continually increases.

6. Over the history of the universe space has expanded by a large amount. This is consistent with the amount of DM estimated to be 5x that of ordinary matter.

So all in all this new theory of DM seems extremely promising. It's also testable by running current DM distributions backwards to see where they originate. The Hubble warps must produce some gravitational effect. If it isn't DM then what else could it be?


This is one of the many new theories to be found in my new book Universal Reality 2.0 available on Amazon under my name.

Edgar L. Owen

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#424226

Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> 
> The Hubble expansion of space occurs only in intergalactic space. Space inside galaxies isn't expanding because it's gravitationally bound. (Wheeler, Misner, Thorne,, Gravitation, p. 719).
> 
> This uneven expansion of space should produce warps in space around galactic boundaries, and by relativity any warp in space is equivalent to a gravitational field. Thus these warps are the most reasonable explanation for the dark matter effect.
> 
> There are several important advantages to this theory:
> 
> 1: The warps occur around galactic boundaries precisely where the dark matter effect occurs. But once created such DM fields can move around under gravitational interactions just like galaxies do.
> 
> 2. It's a simple parsimonious explanation based only on established principles of relativity and requires no new undiscovered particles beyond the Standard Model.
> 
> 3. It's automatically dark because it's not particle based.
> 
> 4. It interacts only through the gravitational force as DM is known to do.
> 
> 5. It's consistent with recent evidence that there was less DM in the early universe (http://www.eso.org/public/usa/news/eso1709/) since as space continually e
> 
> 6. Over the history of the universe space has expanded by a large amount. This is consistent with the amount of DM estimated to be 5x that of ordinary matter.
> 
> So all in all this new theory of DM seems extremely promising. It's also testable by running current DM distributions backwards to see where they originate. The Hubble warps must produce some gravitational effect. If it isn't DM then what else could it be?
> 
> This is one of the many new theories to be found in my new book Universal Reality 2.0 available on Amazon under my name.
> 
> Edgar L. Owen



didn't anybody tell you that the reason you cannot see dark matter is because it doesn't exist????

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424292

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> >
> > The Hubble expansion of space occurs only in intergalactic space. Space inside galaxies isn't expanding because it's gravitationally bound. (Wheeler, Misner, Thorne,, Gravitation, p. 719).
> >
> > This uneven expansion of space should produce warps in space around galactic boundaries, and by relativity any warp in space is equivalent to a gravitational field. Thus these warps are the most reasonable explanation for the dark matter effect.
> >
> > There are several important advantages to this theory:
> >
> > 1: The warps occur around galactic boundaries precisely where the dark matter effect occurs. But once created such DM fields can move around under gravitational interactions just like galaxies do.
> >
> > 2. It's a simple parsimonious explanation based only on established principles of relativity and requires no new undiscovered particles beyond the Standard Model.
> >
> > 3. It's automatically dark because it's not particle based.
> >
> > 4. It interacts only through the gravitational force as DM is known to do.
> >
> > 5. It's consistent with recent evidence that there was less DM in the early universe (http://www.eso.org/public/usa/news/eso1709/) since as space continually
> >
> > 6. Over the history of the universe space has expanded by a large amount. This is consistent with the amount of DM estimated to be 5x that of ordinary matter.
> >
> > So all in all this new theory of DM seems extremely promising. It's also testable by running current DM distributions backwards to see where they originate. The Hubble warps must produce some gravitational effect. If it isn't DM then what else could it be?
> >
> > This is one of the many new theories to be found in my new book Universal Reality 2.0 available on Amazon under my name.
> >
> > Edgar L. Owen
> 
> didn't anybody tell you that the reason you cannot see dark matter is because it doesn't exist????


You see, Albert Einstein built the atomic bomb BECAUSE he wanted to prove E=Mc^2 was REAL, and not 'just a theory'.



He spent ten years working at a patent office seeing 'others' taking their ideas and making it Real.


It kind of....rub off on him.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424297

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > >
> > > The Hubble expansion of space occurs only in intergalactic space. Space inside galaxies isn't expanding because it's gravitationally bound. (Wheeler, Misner, Thorne,, Gravitation, p. 719).
> > >
> > > This uneven expansion of space should produce warps in space around galactic boundaries, and by relativity any warp in space is equivalent to a gravitational field. Thus these warps are the most reasonable explanation for the dark matter effect.
> > >
> > > There are several important advantages to this theory:
> > >
> > > 1: The warps occur around galactic boundaries precisely where the dark matter effect occurs. But once created such DM fields can move around under gravitational interactions just like galaxies do.
> > >
> > > 2. It's a simple parsimonious explanation based only on established principles of relativity and requires no new undiscovered particles beyond the Standard Model.
> > >
> > > 3. It's automatically dark because it's not particle based.
> > >
> > > 4. It interacts only through the gravitational force as DM is known to do.
> > >
> > > 5. It's consistent with recent evidence that there was less DM in the early universe (http://www.eso.org/public/usa/news/eso1709/) since as space continual
> > >
> > > 6. Over the history of the universe space has expanded by a large amount. This is consistent with the amount of DM estimated to be 5x that of ordinary matter.
> > >
> > > So all in all this new theory of DM seems extremely promising. It's also testable by running current DM distributions backwards to see where they originate. The Hubble warps must produce some gravitational effect. If it isn't DM then what else could it be?
> > >
> > > This is one of the many new theories to be found in my new book Universal Reality 2.0 available on Amazon under my name.
> > >
> > > Edgar L. Owen
> >
> > didn't anybody tell you that the reason you cannot see dark matter is because it doesn't exist????
> 
> You see, Albert Einstein built the atomic bomb BECAUSE he wanted to prove E=Mc^2 was REAL, and not 'just a theory'.
> 
> He spent ten years working at a patent office seeing 'others' taking their ideas and making it Real.
> 
> It kind of....rub off on him.



http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1946/1101460701_400.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424430

On 7/6/17 7/6/17 - 6:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> The Hubble expansion of space occurs only in intergalactic space. Space
> inside galaxies isn't expanding because it's gravitationally bound. (Wheeler,
> Misner, Thorne,, Gravitation, p. 719).

Yes.

> This uneven expansion of space should produce warps in space around galactic
> boundaries, and by relativity any warp in space is equivalent to a
> gravitational field. Thus these warps are the most reasonable explanation for
> the dark matter effect.

Not a bad guess.

But physics is a QUANTITATIVE science, and the numbers just don't work out. Not 
even close. Moreover, dark matter is observed throughout most galaxies, not just 
at their edges. And there are a few regions of dark matter unassociated with any 
(visible) galaxy (e.g. the bullet cluster).

> [...]

If you want to understand this, you must STUDY. Your use of "warp" implies that 
you don't understand it at all.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424438

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 10:33:44 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/6/17 7/6/17 - 6:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > The Hubble expansion of space occurs only in intergalactic space. Space
> > inside galaxies isn't expanding because it's gravitationally bound. (Wheeler,
> > Misner, Thorne,, Gravitation, p. 719).
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > This uneven expansion of space should produce warps in space around galactic
> > boundaries, and by relativity any warp in space is equivalent to a
> > gravitational field. Thus these warps are the most reasonable explanation for
> > the dark matter effect.
> 
> Not a bad guess.
> 
> But physics is a QUANTITATIVE science, and the numbers just don't work out. Not 
> even close. Moreover, dark matter is observed throughout most galaxies, not just 
> at their edges. And there are a few regions of dark matter unassociated with any 
> (visible) galaxy (e.g. the bullet cluster).
> 
> > [...]
> 
> If you want to understand this, you must STUDY. Your use of "warp" implies that 
> you don't understand it at all.
> 
> Tom Roberts

Tom,

I agree the theory must be confirmed mathematically. However as I stated once the uneven expansion warps (read curvatures if you prefer) are formed they act as independent gravitational masses and can move relative to the galaxy they formed around. That addresses the known distribution of DM not being just around galactic boundaries.

Now a question to you. Since warps (curvatures) in space must act as gravitational fields and there must have been massive warping over the history of Hubble expansion how do these expansion warps (curvatures) manifest if not as DM? Where is their very large expected gravitational effect if it isn't DM?

Edgar L. Owen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424516

On 7/10/17 7/10/17 - 10:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Since warps (curvatures) in space must act as gravitational fields and there
> must have been massive warping over the history of Hubble expansion how do
> these expansion warps (curvatures) manifest if not as DM? Where is their very
> large expected gravitational effect if it isn't DM?

Curvature is not a SOURCE of curvature, it is rather an expression of the 
curvature induced by energy and momentum (both here and elsewhere/elsewhen).

	With one exception: a geon. This is a region of curvature
	in vacuum that is self-sustaining. This is QUITE different
	from big bang cosmologies, and all known geons are unstable.
	People have conjectured that all geons are unstable, but this
	has not been proven. I believe it is also true that for every
	known geon there is a boundary outside of which the curvature
	vanishes much more rapidly than 1/r, so they don't "look"
	like mass from far away.

In big-bang cosmologies based on FLRW manifolds, this is already accounted for 
(it is part and parcel of the field equation that determines those manifolds).


You display just one more example of the dictum that if you want to make a 
contribution to science, you MUST become familiar with what is already known. 
For cosmology that includes understanding GR at a fundamental level, and 
studying the many theories already formulated. Otherwise you just waste your 
time on things already known to not work.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424550

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/10/17 7/10/17 - 10:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > Since warps (curvatures) in space must act as gravitational fields and there
> > must have been massive warping over the history of Hubble expansion how do
> > these expansion warps (curvatures) manifest if not as DM? Where is their very
> > large expected gravitational effect if it isn't DM?
> 
> Curvature is not a SOURCE of curvature, it is rather an expression of the 
> curvature induced by energy and momentum (both here and elsewhere/elsewhen).
> 
> 	With one exception: a geon. This is a region of curvature
> 	in vacuum that is self-sustaining. This is QUITE different
> 	from big bang cosmologies, and all known geons are unstable.
> 	People have conjectured that all geons are unstable, but this
> 	has not been proven. I believe it is also true that for every
> 	known geon there is a boundary outside of which the curvature
> 	vanishes much more rapidly than 1/r, so they don't "look"
> 	like mass from far away.
> 
> In big-bang cosmologies based on FLRW manifolds, this is already accounted for 
> (it is part and parcel of the field equation that determines those manifolds).
> 
> 
> You display just one more example of the dictum that if you want to make a 
> contribution to science, you MUST become familiar with what is already known. 
> For cosmology that includes understanding GR at a fundamental level, and 
> studying the many theories already formulated. Otherwise you just waste your 
> time on things already known to not work.
> 
> Tom Roberts

Tom,

I'm not sure you understand the basic concept of what I'm suggesting, that the uneven expansion of space around galactic boundaries produces warps in space that are effectively novel gravitational fields. I never suggested 'curvature produces curvature'.

Edgar L. Owen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424587

On 7/11/17 7/11/17   4:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 7/10/17 7/10/17 - 10:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>> Since warps (curvatures) in space must act as gravitational fields and
>>> there must have been massive warping over the history of Hubble expansion
>>> how do these expansion warps (curvatures) manifest if not as DM? Where is
>>> their very large expected gravitational effect if it isn't DM?
>> 
>> Curvature is not a SOURCE of curvature, it is rather an expression of the 
>> curvature induced by energy and momentum (both here and
>> elsewhere/elsewhen).
>> 
>> With one exception: a geon. This is a region of curvature in vacuum that is
>> self-sustaining. This is QUITE different from big bang cosmologies, and all
>> known geons are unstable. People have conjectured that all geons are
>> unstable, but this has not been proven. I believe it is also true that for
>> every known geon there is a boundary outside of which the curvature 
>> vanishes much more rapidly than 1/r, so they don't "look" like mass from
>> far away.
>> 
>> In big-bang cosmologies based on FLRW manifolds, this is already accounted
>> for (it is part and parcel of the field equation that determines those
>> manifolds).
>> 
>> 
>> You display just one more example of the dictum that if you want to make a 
>> contribution to science, you MUST become familiar with what is already
>> known. For cosmology that includes understanding GR at a fundamental level,
>> and studying the many theories already formulated. Otherwise you just waste
>> your time on things already known to not work.
>> 
>> Tom Roberts
> 
> Tom,
> 
> I'm not sure you understand the basic concept of what I'm suggesting, that
> the uneven expansion of space around galactic boundaries produces warps in
> space that are effectively novel gravitational fields. I never suggested
> 'curvature produces curvature'.

But curvature _IS_ the gravitational field.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424601

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 12:17:14 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/11/17 7/11/17   4:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 11:42:50 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 7/10/17 7/10/17 - 10:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> >>> Since warps (curvatures) in space must act as gravitational fields and
> >>> there must have been massive warping over the history of Hubble expansion
> >>> how do these expansion warps (curvatures) manifest if not as DM? Where is
> >>> their very large expected gravitational effect if it isn't DM?
> >> 
> >> Curvature is not a SOURCE of curvature, it is rather an expression of the 
> >> curvature induced by energy and momentum (both here and
> >> elsewhere/elsewhen).
> >> 
> >> With one exception: a geon. This is a region of curvature in vacuum that is
> >> self-sustaining. This is QUITE different from big bang cosmologies, and all
> >> known geons are unstable. People have conjectured that all geons are
> >> unstable, but this has not been proven. I believe it is also true that for
> >> every known geon there is a boundary outside of which the curvature 
> >> vanishes much more rapidly than 1/r, so they don't "look" like mass from
> >> far away.
> >> 
> >> In big-bang cosmologies based on FLRW manifolds, this is already accounted
> >> for (it is part and parcel of the field equation that determines those
> >> manifolds).
> >> 
> >> 
> >> You display just one more example of the dictum that if you want to make a 
> >> contribution to science, you MUST become familiar with what is already
> >> known. For cosmology that includes understanding GR at a fundamental level,
> >> and studying the many theories already formulated. Otherwise you just waste
> >> your time on things already known to not work.
> >> 
> >> Tom Roberts
> > 
> > Tom,
> > 
> > I'm not sure you understand the basic concept of what I'm suggesting, that
> > the uneven expansion of space around galactic boundaries produces warps in
> > space that are effectively novel gravitational fields. I never suggested
> > 'curvature produces curvature'.
> 
> But curvature _IS_ the gravitational field.
> 
> Tom Roberts

But do you understand how the uneven expansion of space around galactic boundaries could be producing more curvature? I don't see that you do?

Edgar

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web