New Theory Explains Dark Matter

[Syne]

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.

So decidedly less parsimonious without any clear advantage.

As for evidence.  The first test of a new theory is that it replicates the features of successful preceding theories. 

Except yours is less parsimonious, making that "test" a failure. Now if you minimally sacrificed parsimony for unique, verifiable predictions....

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.

Your unevidenced "contraction field" is actually less parsimonious than the placeholder term "dark matter". And the inability to find dark matter does not count as de facto evidence for your alternative. That's not how science works.

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?

Not until actually observed.

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.

Of course the expansion will be slower the further we can observe. That's the whole point of it accelerating over time.

[FluidSpaceMan]

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.

So decidedly less parsimonious without any clear advantage.

As for evidence.  The first test of a new theory is that it replicates the features of successful preceding theories. 

Except yours is less parsimonious, making that "test" a failure. Now if you minimally sacrificed parsimony for unique, verifiable predictions....

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.

Your unevidenced "contraction field" is actually less parsimonious than the placeholder term "dark matter". And the inability to find dark matter does not count as de facto evidence for your alternative. That's not how science works.

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?

Not until actually observed.

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.

Of course the expansion will be slower the further we can observe. That's the whole point of it accelerating over time.

There is exactly the same evidence for this theory as there is for dark matter and dark energy.  I'm not sure what you mean by parsimonious, but if you mean a more efficient theory, I would go along with that.  The clear advantage is that the cosmos could be filled with only normal matter, dark matter and dark energy can go away.  The key part in the final prediction is that we would see farther than we expect to see according to the current dark matter dark energy theory.

[Syne]

There is exactly the same evidence for this theory as there is for dark matter and dark energy.  I'm not sure what you mean by parsimonious, but if you mean a more efficient theory, I would go along with that.  The clear advantage is that the cosmos could be filled with only normal matter, dark matter and dark energy can go away.  The key part in the final prediction is that we would see farther than we expect to see according to the current dark matter dark energy theory.

Dark matter only postulates an extra source of gravity, while your "contraction field" is an invention making quite a few more unnecessary assumptions. Hence yours is not as parsimonious (Occam's razor). And no, there is more evidence for an extra source of gravity, leaving all known physics intact.

But that aside, what mechanism do you propose causes your "contraction field"? Dark matter has the hypothesized mechanism of WIMPs. You may dismiss that with your incredulity about "tiny particles", but does your idea even have a hypothesized mechanism?

[FluidSpaceMan]

The free online PDf develops the theory both philosophically and mathematically, with a mechanism that is much easier to visualize than Einstein's GR. This mechanism is described in sections 2 and 3. In FST, the contraction field is a natural consequence of gravity.

Proposing that there is a subtlety we have yet to learn about normal matter is actually simpler than assuming the existence of vast quantities of another form of matter we have never seen.

Your questions have been great and have helped me come up with new and better ways to explain the theory.

---

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?

---

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!

FYI I found the link to Tom Martin's paper.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0006/0006029.pdf

He starts out well, but is not bold enough to follow through.

[Syne]

Yeah, not giving your site any more clicks. You can either provide a searchable PDF, be seen as a crank, trying to profit on a paper that no peer-reviewed journal would accept, or just explain it here. Your choice. I'll assume the latter.

How does gravity produce your contraction field, and why/how does that contraction field differ from gravity?

Proposing a subtlety in the matter we have studies extensively for decades is actually less parsimonious than something we simply haven't found yet. The odds for something we just haven't discovered is simpler than some exotic trait of ordinary matter somehow going completely unobserved for so long.


That's great if my questions help you explain better, but so far, I'm no closer to believing you than when I started.

[RainbowUnicorn]

Einstein's GR describes a somewhat static warping of space time.  The warped space follows the motion of the object but nothing more.

FST reproduces this same warping but with a dynamic inflow that causes space-time to continually vanish over time.  Think of the waterfall analogy, gravitational mass continuously gobbles up space-time.  So in addition to the gravity field as described by GR, there is an additional contraction field.

how does that explain the expanding universe & increasing acceleration ?
how does that explain the anomaly of galaxys rotating at speeds with orbital mass that exceededs its visual mass to contain through conventional gravity physics ?

[RainbowUnicorn]

though technically it is not explaining dark matter.
it is saying it doesnt exist.

which is missleading for any scientific premis and obviousely emotionally driven.

it should say "new theory says dark matter does not exist"

but it doesnt... so it falls into propoganda which is probably aimed at the religous fanatics.