New Theory Explains Dark Matter

[FluidSpaceMan]

What if normal, gravity producing matter, was also surrounded by a space-time contraction field?  There is a website out there that describes a new theory that predicts such a field.

http://www.fluidspacetheory.com/fluidspacetheory/

If this is true, governments around the world are wasting billions looking for dark matter.

[Syne]

Can you give a brief summary of the theory, without all the prologue in your link?

How is a "space-time contraction field" different from what the gravity of ordinary matter does to space-time geometry?

[FluidSpaceMan]

Can you give a brief summary of the theory, without all the prologue in your link?

How is a "space-time contraction field" different from what the gravity of ordinary matter does to space-time geometry?

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.

[Syne]

Can you give a brief summary of the theory, without all the prologue in your link?

How is a "space-time contraction field" different from what the gravity of ordinary matter does to space-time geometry?

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

Not quite. Matter tells space how to bend and space tells matter how to move. That's a pretty dynamic feedback system.

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.

What predictable effect does that extra "inflow" produce?
Shouldn't the universe be contracting if space-time is continually vanishing?

[FluidSpaceMan]

Can you give a brief summary of the theory, without all the prologue in your link?

How is a "space-time contraction field" different from what the gravity of ordinary matter does to space-time geometry?

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

Not quite. Matter tells space how to bend and space tells matter how to move. That's a pretty dynamic feedback system.

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.

What predictable effect does that extra "inflow" produce?
Shouldn't the universe be contracting if space-time is continually vanishing?

Yes, in Einstein's GR matter tells space-time how to curve, so an object like a planet or a star is surrounded by a region of curved space-time that comes along it as it moves, and directs its motion as it interacts with the curved space surrounding other objects.  But a lone star or planet could have a pretty stable, or static gravitational field, certainly not one imagined to be consuming the space-time surrounding it.

According to section 4 of the on-line PDF, the contraction field acts to produce flat galaxy rotation curves and hold galaxy clusters together similar to dark matter.  The contraction field is still imposed over a universal expansion, acting to slow expansion within galaxies and galaxy clusters.

Depending on the balance, it could result in a flat universe, an ever expanding one, or one that will fall back in on itself.  So that doesn't really change anything except this is all caused by normal matter and nothing more is required.

[Syne]

According to section 4 of the on-line PDF, the contraction field acts to produce flat galaxy rotation curves and hold galaxy clusters together similar to dark matter.  The contraction field is still imposed over a universal expansion, acting to slow expansion within galaxies and galaxy clusters.

Depending on the balance, it could result in a flat universe, an ever expanding one, or one that will fall back in on itself.  So that doesn't really change anything except this is all caused by normal matter and nothing more is required.

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?

[FluidSpaceMan]

According to section 4 of the on-line PDF, the contraction field acts to produce flat galaxy rotation curves and hold galaxy clusters together similar to dark matter.  The contraction field is still imposed over a universal expansion, acting to slow expansion within galaxies and galaxy clusters.

Depending on the balance, it could result in a flat universe, an ever expanding one, or one that will fall back in on itself.  So that doesn't really change anything except this is all caused by normal matter and nothing more is required.

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.

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.

[Syne]

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"?

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).

[Secular Sanity]

Is it similar to Stefano Liberati’s and Luca Maccione’s theory?

[RainbowUnicorn]

What if normal, gravity producing matter, was also surrounded by a space-time contraction field?  There is a website out there that describes a new theory that predicts such a field.

http://www.fluidspacetheory.com/fluidspacetheory/

If this is true, governments around the world are wasting billions looking for dark matter.

there is the inverted universe theory.
which defines things like suns being created in reverse.
like a harmonic field where energy is produced at points that cross each other.

this kinda sounds a little like the void theory of that.

as an aside...
keeping that(general area of discussion) in mind...
there is an ever growing field of scientism christians who enjoy the idea of undermining basic physics with "magical" god attributable concepts just to appease their own interest in fringe theory.
while they may be great ways to increase communication on advanced thinking models, unfortunately they are fertile ground for flat earth extremists to convert ignorant people to dog-whistle scientism.

does probability define gravitational reality ?
are there any examples to show that probability exists outside the statistically probable model ?

im fascinated by the thermodynamics liniar concept as it fits to be uni directional but not to an absolute. its much like the speed of sound barrier.
how much of our understanding of science is based on principals that only appear to be laws to a point that we are yet to aquire the ability to compute past... ?