New Theory Explains Dark Matter

(Dec 3, 2017 09:04 PM)Syne Wrote:

(Dec 3, 2017 06:42 PM)FluidSpaceMan Wrote:

(Dec 2, 2017 09:54 PM)Syne Wrote: Why is "space-time contraction" more prominent toward the edges of galaxies?
Does it increase with the square of the distance? Why?

How does it explain the accelerating expansion of the universe?



And does it (FST) make any unique predictions, or is it just a competing hypothesis to dark matter?

It is all on the web site to read.  Regular gravity falls of with the square of the distance, the contraction field falls off more slowly making it more effective than normal gravity at longer distances.

Then it contributes to the effect of gravity near matter? That's the only way it could decrease with distance.
What percentage of gravity near matter do you claim is actually this "contraction field"?

Quote:See section 4.1

Yes, it answers the arrow of time question, it predicts that black holes do not contain singularities, and accurately calculates gravitational field energy and vacuum energy.

It is worth reading for that information alone.

I didn't ask about the arrow of time, nor black holes.

I DID ask about the accelerating expansion of space and unique predictions.

If you can't answer those, don't try to distract with non sequiturs....just admit it.


And if you can't answer simple questions about it on this forum, quit proselytizing it everywhere (including in unrelated topics).

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my answer.  The part about the arrow of time and singularities inside black holes are some of the unique predictions.  I try to keep answers brief but I may not have given enough context.  Another unique prediction is that the gravitational constant drops to zero at the event horizon of a black hole, or at least it will appear that way from the outside.

As for the gravitational contribution of contraction near matter.  The answer is that the ratio varies with distance.  Inside the solar system out to around the orbit of Jupiter the percentage is very low, not even enough to notice, a fraction of a percent.  Farther out around Pluto and in the Kuiper belt it may be up to a few percent, which would predict slightly faster orbits will be observed than predicted by Newtonian or GR gravity.  This will be increasingly true in the Oort cloud. It is only when you get out to galactic scales that it becomes significant and may become many times stronger than normal gravity.  At the galactic rim, in the numerical model, contraction was as much as 15 times more effective than gravity alone.

As for the accelerating expansion of the universe.  The contraction field will be centered around galaxies and will help hold galaxy clusters together, this means that as the universe expands, the galaxies and clusters will not expand, and occupy about the same volume.  Over time, the proportion of expanding space between the galaxy clusters, will increase.  The larger that proportion of expanding space becomes, the faster overall expansion will appear.  The actual rate of the expansion of the universe could be constant but as the volume of expanding space occupies 50%, 60%, 70% etc. overall expansion will appear to accelerate.  One thing this does, is to eliminate the prediction of runaway expansion in the distant future of the cosmos.  And since the expansion isn't actually accelerating, no dark energy is required to drive it.

I hope I didn't go to long with this answer.

(Dec 4, 2017 11:47 PM)FluidSpaceMan Wrote:

(Dec 3, 2017 09:04 PM)Syne Wrote: Then it contributes to the effect of gravity near matter? That's the only way it could decrease with distance.
What percentage of gravity near matter do you claim is actually this "contraction field"?


I didn't ask about the arrow of time, nor black holes.

I DID ask about the accelerating expansion of space and unique predictions.

If you can't answer those, don't try to distract with non sequiturs....just admit it.


And if you can't answer simple questions about it on this forum, quit proselytizing it everywhere (including in unrelated topics).

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my answer.  The part about the arrow of time and singularities inside black holes are some of the unique predictions.  I try to keep answers brief but I may not have given enough context.  Another unique prediction is that the gravitational constant drops to zero at the event horizon of a black hole, or at least it will appear that way from the outside.

Not wasting time reading a whole paper that immediately begs the question (e.g. "Fluid Space Theory always works. If Fluid Space Theory does not work, you are doing something wrong"). So yes, if you want serious consideration, you will need to elaborate here. Luckily, that's what forums are for. Now if you weren't trying to make money just so people could access it in a searchable format...

How does it predict the arrow of time, beyond existing physics?
Whether or not black hole singularities exist is not falsifiable. Their existence is predicted by, and predicated on the success of, GR, but not verifiable. So the only means to judge your assertions about singularities would be success comparable to that of GR. And likewise, beyond an event horizon, and whatever happens to gravity there, is not falsifiable.

Quote:As for the accelerating expansion of the universe. The contraction field will be centered around galaxies and will help hold galaxy clusters together, this means that as the universe expands, the galaxies and clusters will not expand, and occupy about the same volume. Over time, the proportion of expanding space between the galaxy clusters, will increase. The larger that proportion of expanding space becomes, the faster overall expansion will appear. The actual rate of the expansion of the universe could be constant but as the volume of expanding space occupies 50%, 60%, 70% etc. overall expansion will appear to accelerate. One thing this does, is to eliminate the prediction of runaway expansion in the distant future of the cosmos. And since the expansion isn't actually accelerating, no dark energy is required to drive it.

Wait, you're trying to say the metric expansion of space isn't accelerating?
And you think this is because gravity...plus your "contraction field"...holds clusters together?
"Portion of expanding space"? So only parts of space expand?
Why would gravity...plus your "contraction field"...be necessary to hold things together unless all space expands?


So far, you've provided no evidence to favor your idea. Dark matter is just a placeholder (not an invention) for an unknown gravitational contribution. A simple placeholder is much more parsimonious than your invention of new physics, "arrived at by reason" in lieu of compelling evidence.

(Dec 5, 2017 05:58 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Dec 5, 2017 02:49 AM)Syne Wrote: So far, you've provided no evidence to favor your idea.

Geez, Syne, simmer down. The idea has been around for a while and it is fun to think about.  I’ll try to read a little more about it after the holidays.

Superfluid Vacuum Theory

According to general relativity, the conventional gravitational wave is:

1. the small fluctuation of curved spacetime which
2. has been separated from its source and propagates independently.

Superfluid vacuum theory brings into question the possibility that a relativistic object possessing both of these properties exists in nature.

No, you need to go read a bit of the PDF he links to. It's nowhere near the same thing. He's not talking about gravitational waves. He's talking about an additional contribution to gravity...an alternative to dark matter.

Quote:This might be a really naïve (before coffee) type of question, but if we thought of matter as a defect, and if the universe was devoid of matter during inflation, why couldn’t we think of the vacuum as a superfluid with charge moving along the surface?  

I see no credible evidence to support a superfluid vacuum theory, so I'd be no good at such speculation. If you know of any evidence that hints at it, I'd be happy to take a look.

(Dec 3, 2017 11:48 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Is it similar to Stefano Liberati’s and Luca Maccione’s theory?

It is kind of like theirs, except in their conception, space-time breaks down into quantum bits that make it behave as an elastic super fluid.  I don't believe they used the relativistic sink flow model.  In this theory, space-time is a continuum (no amount that cannot be further divided) that behaves as an elastic super fluid.

In reverse of Liberati’s and Luca Maccione’s theory, this continuum may be filled with tiny spherical discontinuities at the quantum level giving rise to quantum foam.  The quantum foam would present a barrier to observations at any smaller scale.  I have forwarded the link to their emails, but as with most physicists, there has been no reply.

This theory is more like one in a paper by Tom Martin, "General Relativity and Spatial Flows", around 2004.  But Martin didn't describe a contraction field or as drastically depart from Einstein's doctrine.

(Dec 5, 2017 07:20 PM)Syne Wrote: No, you need to go read a bit of the PDF he links to. It's nowhere near the same thing. He's not talking about gravitational waves. He's talking about an additional contribution to gravity...an alternative to dark matter.

I might have a look after the holidays, but what I’m trying to say is that neither one of us know enough about the current state of the field to critique it. It’s a speculative theory, not a crackpot idea.

Is Dark Matter Subatomic Particles, a Superfluid, or both?

---

(Dec 6, 2017 04:26 PM)FluidSpaceMan Wrote: This theory is more like one in a paper by Tom Martin, "General Relativity and Spatial Flows", around 2004.  But Martin didn't describe a contraction field or as drastically depart from Einstein's doctrine.

Okay. I'll try to find it when I have more time.

Thanks!

(Dec 5, 2017 02:49 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Dec 4, 2017 11:47 PM)FluidSpaceMan Wrote:

(Dec 3, 2017 09:04 PM)Syne Wrote: Then it contributes to the effect of gravity near matter? That's the only way it could decrease with distance.
What percentage of gravity near matter do you claim is actually this "contraction field"?


I didn't ask about the arrow of time, nor black holes.

I DID ask about the accelerating expansion of space and unique predictions.

If you can't answer those, don't try to distract with non sequiturs....just admit it.


And if you can't answer simple questions about it on this forum, quit proselytizing it everywhere (including in unrelated topics).

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my answer.  The part about the arrow of time and singularities inside black holes are some of the unique predictions.  I try to keep answers brief but I may not have given enough context.  Another unique prediction is that the gravitational constant drops to zero at the event horizon of a black hole, or at least it will appear that way from the outside.

Not wasting time reading a whole paper that immediately begs the question (e.g. "Fluid Space Theory always works. If Fluid Space Theory does not work, you are doing something wrong"). So yes, if you want serious consideration, you will need to elaborate here. Luckily, that's what forums are for. Now if you weren't trying to make money just so people could access it in a searchable format...

How does it predict the arrow of time, beyond existing physics?
Whether or not black hole singularities exist is not falsifiable. Their existence is predicted by, and predicated on the success of, GR, but not verifiable. So the only means to judge your assertions about singularities would be success comparable to that of GR. And likewise, beyond an event horizon, and whatever happens to gravity there, is not falsifiable.

Quote:As for the accelerating expansion of the universe.  The contraction field will be centered around galaxies and will help hold galaxy clusters together, this means that as the universe expands, the galaxies and clusters will not expand, and occupy about the same volume.  Over time, the proportion of expanding space between the galaxy clusters, will increase.  The larger that proportion of expanding space becomes, the faster overall expansion will appear.  The actual rate of the expansion of the universe could be constant but as the volume of expanding space occupies 50%, 60%, 70% etc. overall expansion will appear to accelerate.  One thing this does, is to eliminate the prediction of runaway expansion in the distant future of the cosmos.  And since the expansion isn't actually accelerating, no dark energy is required to drive it.

Wait, you're trying to say the metric expansion of space isn't accelerating?
And you think this is because gravity...plus your "contraction field"...holds clusters together?
"Portion of expanding space"? So only parts of space expand?
Why would gravity...plus your "contraction field"...be necessary to hold things together unless all space expands?


So far, you've provided no evidence to favor your idea. Dark matter is just a placeholder (not an invention) for an unknown gravitational contribution. A simple placeholder is much more parsimonious than your invention of new physics, "arrived at by reason" in lieu of compelling evidence.

I will explain a little further.  The entire cosmos would be filled with a uniform, (possibly constant) expansion, as in current theory.  The contraction field is a variable field that diminishes with distance but could be much faster than the universal expansion rate within galaxies or galaxy clusters.  When the contraction field exceeds universal expansion, space-time within that region would be contracting overall.  This would lead to a messy melange of expanding and contracting space-time throughout the cosmos, and probably have cosmologists tearing out their hair trying to model it.

Once galaxies stabilize, they will occupy about the same volume over time, galaxy clusters would also remain about the same size.  As intergalactic space expands, it takes up a greater proportion of the cosmos.  The actual expansion rate would be the over all expansion minus the amount of contraction going on around matter.  A large enough proportion of contraction could appear to slow the over all expansion, but as that proportion diminishes, the true expansion rate is slowly unmasked, appearing as acceleration.

As for evidence.  The first test of a new theory is that it replicates the features of successful preceding theories.  GR had to replicate Newtonian gravity and then refine it.  This theory must replicate Newtonian gravity and then replicate the new features add by GR, which it does.  Curved space-time, gravitational time dilation, etc.  Perhaps the best evidence is the continual failure to find dark matter.  If it is a wide field effect, you will never find it by looking for tiny weakly interacting particles.

In order to test this theory, you would have to find something that GR fails to do correctly, such as predict flat galaxy rotation curves, or observed accelerating universal expansion.  Hmmm.  Could this be evidence?

If the universe is actually expanding more slowly than observed redshift would suggest, it would have taken longer to reach its present state.  Perhaps when the Webb telescope gets up and running, we will see more distant galaxies than current theory predicts.

(Dec 6, 2017 04:27 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Dec 5, 2017 07:20 PM)Syne Wrote: No, you need to go read a bit of the PDF he links to. It's nowhere near the same thing. He's not talking about gravitational waves. He's talking about an additional contribution to gravity...an alternative to dark matter.

I might have a look after the holidays, but what I’m trying to say is that neither one of us know enough about the current state of the field to critique it. It’s a speculative theory, not a crackpot idea.

Is Dark Matter Subatomic Particles, a Superfluid, or both?

Have you even looked at his website?

http://www.fluidspacetheory.com/fluidspacetheory/
"The 2 Rules for Implementing Fluid Space Theory

1.  Fluid Space Theory always works.

2.  If Fluid Space Theory does not work, you are doing something wrong; refer to rule number 1.

That literally proclaims that any critique is wrong. All the hallmarks of crackpottery are there. Mischaracterizing existing science (e.g. calling dark matter an "invention"), claiming "reason" alone trumps the need for both empirical evidence and parsimony, presuming no critique can be valid from the onset, trying to sell copies of his work, etc.. All he lacks is demanding someone "prove him wrong" (which is just a hair's breath away from presuming he can't be wrong).


So yes, I can critique because I know he's not working in "the field"...he's demonstrably on the ragged fringe. Now, he could make changes that would safely qualify it as speculation, but it would gut most of his claims.

(Dec 6, 2017 05:22 PM)Syne Wrote: Have you even looked at his website?

Yeah, the opening statements are rather off putting, I’ll give you that, but I don’t have time to read it right now. I have to do all the normal girl shit for the holidays.

I think he’s a science fiction writer with an interest in astrophysics, though, not a crank.

(Dec 6, 2017 06:36 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Dec 6, 2017 05:22 PM)Syne Wrote: Have you even looked at his website?

Yeah, the opening statements are rather off putting, I’ll give you that, but I don’t have time to read it right now.  I have to do all the normal girl shit for the holidays.

I think he’s a science fiction writer with an interest in astrophysics, though, not a crank.

Neither of those speak to not being a crank.