Dark Matter vs MOND vs Gravity by EM waves

Mar 30, 2020
24
9
515
The following two links to two research projects indicate that there is a gravity force between photons that behaves like matter with mass. This conclusion opens a new door to the study of Dark Matter.

The experiment in the Large Hadron Collider shows how photons can behave like matter with mass. “CERN have found that the first direct evidence of high energy light-by-light scattering a very rare process in which two photos - particles of light - interact and change direction.”

https://atlas.cern/updates/press-statement/atlas-sees-first-direct-evidence-light-light-scattering-high-energy
https://www.bnl.gov/newsroom/news.php?a=217397

The following is another experiment by the University of Pittsburgh. “Unlike particles of matter, however, photons have no mass. It is surprising, then, to find that gravity - traditionally understood as the force attracting any two objects with mass - can affect light.”

https://funsizephysics.com/gravity-for-photons/

Below you will find a very brief comparison that I presented among the theories of Dark Matter, MOND, and Gravity Force by Electromagnetic wave.

Chart on comparisons below. Yes means the observation supports that theory, No means it doesn’t.

Dark MatterMONDG by EM waves
Galaxy Rotation CurveYesYesYes
Gravitational Lensing
YesNoYes
Bullet Cluster
YesNoYes
Tully-Fisher Relation
NoYesYes
Dark Matter Halo
NoNoYes
Core-Cusp problem
NoYesYes
Data on Cosmological scaleYesNoYes

A comparative examination of cosmological observations through three theories:

Dark Matter vs MOND vs Gravity by EM waves

In order to explain gravitational effect observations which cannot be explained by today’s mainstream physics in galaxies and large-scale cosmos, many new theories have been proposed. Currently the theory suggesting that Dark Matter is comprised of tiny particles is generally accepted. However, this theory faces some tough challenges such as the Tully-Fisher relation and the Core-Cusp Problem. To date, no such particle has been detected after more than three decades of research.

Due to the obvious problems with the above Dark Matter theory, some alternatives have been proposed. One of them is the MOND (Modified Newtonian dynamics) theory, which can explain some observations neatly. But this theory is also struggling with some other observations, such as the Bullet Cluster, Gravitational Lensing, CMB, expansion of the universe, etc.

However, there is one new field theory on gravity force that was published in 2020. This theory explains all those observations. The new field theory postulates that if the gravity force is in fact due to an elastic field it would be also exerted by electromagnetic waves/photons/light. Here are the equations:

F=Y_1 (f_1 f_2)/r^2 (gravity force between photon and photon)
F=Y_2 f m/r^2 (gravity force between photon and mass)

Where:
F – gravity force between two photons or photon and an object with mass
Y_1 = 3.61 × 10^−111 𝑚^3 𝑘g
Y_2 = 4.91 x 10^-61 m^3 s^-1
f – photon frequency
m – mass of object
r – distance between two photons or object with mass and photon

The details of these two equations are in this link:

https://zenodo.org/record/4541280#.YPOcfUwpDIW

Here is a link to a paper posted on March 27, 2020 positing a theory that the elastic field as a unified field can explain the mechanism of gravity force exerted by EM waves:

https://zenodo.org/record/4057270#.YPOcr0wpDIW

According to this new theory, this is where the extra gravity force on those so-called Dark Matter observations comes from.

The following is a brief comparison of three theories to see if they can explain the different observations that are currently under debate. The theories compared are: Dark Matter as tiny particle (will be referenced as Dark Matter), MOND, Dark Matter as gravitational effect by Electromagnetic waves / photons / light (will be referenced as Gravity by EM waves).

- Galaxy Rotation Curve

“The rotation curve of a disc galaxy (also called a velocity curve) is a plot of the orbital speeds of visible stars or gas in that galaxy versus their radial distance from that galaxy's center. It is typically rendered graphically as a plot, and the data observed from each side of a spiral galaxy are generally asymmetric, so that data from each side are averaged to create the curve. A significant discrepancy exists between the experimental curves observed, and a curve derived by applying gravity theory to the matter observed in a galaxy.”

All three theories can explain this observation.


- Gravitational Lensing

“A gravitational lens is a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant light source and an observer, that is capable of bending the light from the source as the light travels towards the observer.”

Dark Matter can explain this very well, while MOND is having difficulty with this observation.

Gravity by EM waves can explain this very well. The additional gravitational force exerted by EM waves emitted from a Galaxy would lead to an increase in calculated gravitational lensing that would match the observations.


- Bullet Cluster

“The Bullet Cluster (1E 0657-56) consists of two colliding clusters of galaxies. The stars of the galaxies, observable in visible light, were not greatly affected by the collision, and most passed right through, gravitationally slowed but not otherwise altered. The hot gas of the two colliding components, seen in X-rays, represents most of the baryonic, or "ordinary", matter in the cluster pair. The gases interact electromagnetically, causing the gases of both clusters to slow much more than the stars. The third component, the dark matter, was detected indirectly by the gravitational lensing of background objects.

In
theories without dark matter, such as Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), the lensing would be expected to follow the baryonic matter; i.e. the X-ray gas. However, the lensing is strongest in two separated regions near (possibly coincident with) the visible galaxies. This provides support for the idea that most of the gravitation in the cluster pair is in the form of two regions of dark matter, which bypassed the gas regions during the collision. This accords with predictions of dark matter as only gravitationally interacting, other than weakly interacting.”

Dark Matter claims this is the best evidence for the existence of dark matter, but still cannot explain why dark matter as tiny particles has no fiction among each other, and therefore does not slow down when the tiny particles run into each other.

MOND cannot explain this at all. This is a major problem for MOND.

Gravity by EM waves can explain the Bullet Cluster observation very well. EM waves emitted by each colliding galaxy continue to surround that galaxy when it moves away. EM waves, instead of particles, don’t interact at all with each other but pass right through.


- Tully-Fisher Relation

“The Tully–Fisher relation (TFR) is an empirical relationship between the mass or intrinsic luminosity of a spiral galaxy and its asymptotic rotation velocity or emission line width.”

“Existing dark matter theory predicts that any random galaxy may contain larger or smaller fractions of dark matter. So, when one measures the visible mass, you could potentially be missing a huge chunk of the total mass. As a result, visible mass should be a very poor predictor of the total mass (and thereby rotational speed) of the galaxy. The galaxy's mass could be similar to that of the visible (ordinary) mass or it could be much larger.
Thus, there is no reason to expect that the visible mass should be a good predictor of the rotational speed of the galaxy. Yet it is.
--- By Dr. Don Lincoln of Fermilab”


https://www.livescience.com/59814-is-dark-matter-real.html

This solid observation makes no sense under the theory of Dark Matter as a tiny particle. This is a major reason why the theory of Dark Matter is being seriously questioned by the scientific community.

MOND can explain this observation well.

The theory of Gravity by EM waves can easily explain this. EM waves are light. According to the above gravity force by EM waves equations, the photon’s frequency and number are both variables that affect the gravity force. The higher the frequency and the greater the number of photons, the stronger the extra gravity force will be which allows for a faster rotation speed of the galaxy. Hence there is correlation between luminosity of a galaxy and its velocity of rotation. The Tully-Fisher relation perfectly matches the Gravity by EM Waves theory.


- Dark Matter Halo

“Galaxies are typically flat, yet their observed gravitational fields are spherical. In both galaxies and groups and clusters of galaxies, the dark matter is found to be distributed in a roughly spherical halo around the visible component – the dark halo. Dark matter halos appear to generally be in the shape of triaxial ellipsoids”.

Neither Dark Matter nor MOND can come up with a good explanation for this observation.

Gravity by EM waves can easily explain this. EM waves are emitted in all directions from the galaxy, producing the spherical gravitational field. As EM waves move further out, their energy dissipates decreasing their concentration, and thereby having a lesser effect on the gravitational field. This results in the Dark Matter halos that we observe.


- Core-Cusp problem

“The cuspy halo problem (also known as the core-cusp problem) refers to a discrepancy between the inferred dark matter density profiles of low-mass galaxies and the density profiles predicted by cosmological N-body simulations. Nearly all simulations form dark matter halos which have "cuspy" dark matter distributions, with density increasing steeply at small radii, while the rotation curves of most observed dwarf galaxies suggest that they have flat central dark matter density profiles ("cores").”

“The Core‐Cusp problem” is one of the open questions on Dark Matter theory. There remains a discrepancy between theory and observation regarding the mass‐density distribution of the dark matter halo.

MOND can offer an explanation.

Because EM waves are emitted and spread out in all directions from a galaxy, Gravity by EM wave theory’s prediction won’t contradict the observations of how Dark Matter behaves.


- Observations on how the universe formed and what the structure is now, such as CMB, LCMD, expansion of our universe.

The above observations support Dark Matter theory.

With MOND, it is hard to explain why our universe is what it is now. This is one of the major problems with MOND.

Gravity by EM waves not only can explain the above observations, but also offers new solutions to those problems in this particular field, such as constant, density, smoothness, accelerated rate of expansion of our universe, dark energy, etc.


The comparison above shows that neither Dark Matter or MOND theories can explain all of the cosmological observations. Attempts to combine these theories have just complicated the study. However, the Gravity Force by EM Waves theory can explain these cosmological observations. As the scientific community often follows Occam’s razor principle, this new theory is worth giving serious examination.

For more information, you may want to check this link:
www.GravityEM.com
 
Aug 14, 2020
554
103
1,060
Hmmm. So the force designation for entropy would be the gravitational force of 'antigravity'. Not null gravity or gravity free, but a specific force of gravity itself, 'antigravity'. The gravity of the overall infinite forest (background non-local (or outland)) versus the gravity of the constituent individual trees (foreground local ( or inland)). 'Quantum gravity', maybe, versus 'relative gravity'. Representatively, the set as entity facing, and thus opposed to, the entity of the constituency of the set. Stalemate. Or maybe checkmate.

But not only are the trees constituent to the forest, but the forest is in each individual tree. The background, non-local, infinite always has representation in the foreground, local, finite.... just as the foreground finite has representation in the background infinite via collapsed, forever constant, horizon.

What has this got to do with anything? An infinite mass is at once massless (massless: where / when infinitesimal equates to zero and a big crunch (a point) equates to a big hole (same point in dual -- binary -- dimensionality)). Figure it out.
 
Last edited:
Sep 22, 2021
1
0
10
I'm a firm believer in MOND, only given that it seems more likely that a force we have a hard time measuring is what we're missing here, and not this crazy matter that only interacts with the gravitational force.
If MOND is correct, is that the death of dark matter? I'm just confused because of things like lensing that may not be possible with any MOND theories.


www.rapidfs.com
 
Last edited:
Mar 30, 2020
24
9
515
Hmmm. So the force designation for entropy would be the gravitational force of 'antigravity'. Not null gravity or gravity free, but a specific force of gravity itself, 'antigravity'. The gravity of the overall infinite forest (background non-local (or outland)) versus the gravity of the constituent individual trees (foreground local ( or inland)). 'Quantum gravity', maybe, versus 'relative gravity'. Representatively, the set as entity facing, and thus opposed to, the entity of the constituency of the set. Stalemate. Or maybe checkmate.

But not only are the trees constituent to the forest, but the forest is in each individual tree. The background, non-local, infinite always has representation in the foreground, local, finite.... just as the foreground finite has representation in the background infinite via collapsed, forever constant, horizon.

What has this got to do with anything? An infinite mass is at once massless (massless: where / when infinitesimal equates to zero and a big crunch (a point) equates to a big hole (same point in dual -- binary -- dimensionality)). Figure it out.
Indeed, Gravity force is "anti entropy" in our universe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
Mar 30, 2020
24
9
515
I'm a firm believer in MOND, only given that it seems more likely that a force we have a hard time measuring is what we're missing here, and not this crazy matter that only interacts with the gravitational force.
If MOND is correct, is that the death of dark matter? I'm just confused because of things like lensing that may not be possible with any MOND theories.
You are right, MOND theory has hard time explaining the observation of gravitational lensing.
 
Indeed, Gravity force is "anti entropy" in our universe.
A good thought there, I don't think scientists get that yet! From my new book:

"A nice example of order appearing to come from disorder, i.e. entropy decreasing temporarily, is our highly ordered selves on our highly ordered earth in our solar system. Stars along with their planets form when regions of giant gas clouds, called a nebula, in galaxies collapse under their own gravity. They become so compressed that a nuclear fusion reaction begins and a star is born, the remaining gas circulating the star condenses to form planets. On the face of it, it looks like these gas clouds are a disordered mess, but you came from one!"

and:

"At the same time, my theory also provides a means for recycling order and re-concentrating energy for a new universe. In other words, entropy decreases as matter falls back into a black hole."

The above quote is me proposing a mechanism for recycling universes. There are too many people who think the 2'nd law of thermodynamics means the end of everything by predicting an endless expansion of our universe :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaxGaofeiYan

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
An interesting article entitled “Is dark matter real”, by Keith Cooper, appeared in Astronomy Now, October 2021. After reviewing its origins (“It was named dark matter, though nobody really knew what it was”) and considering previous suggestions, such as MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects) which are known objects such as neutron stars and black holes, attention has passed to new types of particles, distinct from normal matter – “cold, in that they have low energy and tend to sit in large clumps, and that they weakly interact with other forms of normal matter or electromagnetic radiation”. These are called WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles).

Some possible modification of normal gravity is considered – MOND, or MOdified Newtonian Dynamics, but this does not currently compete with dark matter, in terms of explanations of observed phenomena. There is considerably more relevant discussion including coverage of the Bullet Cluster (collision between two galaxy clusters) and NGC 1052 –DF2 and –DF4 (galaxies without dark matter) and evidence from the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, provided by COBE, WMAP and Planck,

In conclusion: “Of course, what would really cement things in favour of dark matter would be if we could actually directly detect a bonafide particle of dark matter” and efforts are being made in this direction involving xenon atoms which, being relatively massive (atomic number 54) “have a greater chance of interacting . . . with a dark matter WIMP”. Whilst no dark matter particles have yet been found, “if dark matter really exists, and is a WIMP, then it is running out of places to hide.”

Cat :)
 
Mar 30, 2020
24
9
515
An interesting article entitled “Is dark matter real”, by Keith Cooper, appeared in Astronomy Now, October 2021. After reviewing its origins (“It was named dark matter, though nobody really knew what it was”) and considering previous suggestions, such as MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects) which are known objects such as neutron stars and black holes, attention has passed to new types of particles, distinct from normal matter – “cold, in that they have low energy and tend to sit in large clumps, and that they weakly interact with other forms of normal matter or electromagnetic radiation”. These are called WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles).

Some possible modification of normal gravity is considered – MOND, or MOdified Newtonian Dynamics, but this does not currently compete with dark matter, in terms of explanations of observed phenomena. There is considerably more relevant discussion including coverage of the Bullet Cluster (collision between two galaxy clusters) and NGC 1052 –DF2 and –DF4 (galaxies without dark matter) and evidence from the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, provided by COBE, WMAP and Planck,

In conclusion: “Of course, what would really cement things in favour of dark matter would be if we could actually directly detect a bonafide particle of dark matter” and efforts are being made in this direction involving xenon atoms which, being relatively massive (atomic number 54) “have a greater chance of interacting . . . with a dark matter WIMP”. Whilst no dark matter particles have yet been found, “if dark matter really exists, and is a WIMP, then it is running out of places to hide.”

Cat :)
Thank you very much for your post and information from Astronomy Now, October 2021.

The theory of Dark Matter as particle, such as WIMP or others, cannot explain Tully-Fisher relation. Below is what I wrote above on this issue.

"“The Tully–Fisher relation (TFR) is an empirical relationship between the mass or intrinsic luminosity of a spiral galaxy and its asymptotic rotation velocity or emission line width.”

“Existing dark matter theory predicts that any random galaxy may contain larger or smaller fractions of dark matter. So, when one measures the visible mass, you could potentially be missing a huge chunk of the total mass. As a result, visible mass should be a very poor predictor of the total mass (and thereby rotational speed) of the galaxy. The galaxy's mass could be similar to that of the visible (ordinary) mass or it could be much larger.
Thus, there is no reason to expect that the visible mass should be a good predictor of the rotational speed of the galaxy. Yet it is.
--- By Dr. Don Lincoln of Fermilab”


https://www.livescience.com/59814-is-dark-matter-real.html

This solid observation makes no sense under the theory of Dark Matter as a tiny particle. This is a major reason why the theory of Dark Matter is being seriously questioned by the scientific community."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Thank you for that most interesting information. In "terms" I try to provide information from available sources in an unbiased. manner. My comments (if any) are posted in blue. Where I have an opinion, I will state it, but in a manner which gives equal value to the opinions of all readers.

For example, I am not a fan of singularities but will state that at the point of division by zero, physics breaks down and allows reasonable ideas or alternatives to be considered. I state that any cyclic model will have difficulties with entropy, so I try to give both sides to all reasonable alternatives.

Please note the closing remarks of the quoted article:
"Whilst no dark matter particles have yet been found, “if dark matter really exists, and is a WIMP, then it is running out of places to hide!"" My emphasis. (They are not my words.)

Please feel free to add your comments to the dark matter "terms" thread. They will be most welcome.

Cat :) :) :)
 
Last edited:

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
David, from your #6:

"In other words, entropy decreases as matter falls back into a black hole"

Is this different from the well known idea that entropy decreases again as the contraction phase takes hold? I can't believe that there is an "instantaneous" reduction "as matter falls back into a black hole".

I appreciate that "falling into a black hole" can take time, but where are you suggesting that the decrease begins? Close to the event horizon? Immediately after peak entropy?

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
Jun 1, 2020
1,764
1,503
5,060
Hawking showed, and he may be correct, that the entropy changes in relation to the area of the EH. But the EH gets larger with more matter, hence as matter falls into the BH, then the EH must necessarily get larger, thus the entropy will increase.

Is there something else here that I'm missing? Does the entropy within the EH go down while overall it goes up, like entropy with a refrigerator, or something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Helio, OK - this is all conjecture, imagination, et cetera:

My 'thought' is that, for a cyclic system, the Universe must contract (in this model) and as it approaches the BH/BB nexus it must go from disorder to order. Organisation goes from (by analogy) steam water molecules dashing around to cooler water with some mobility to ice crystals - obviously accompanied by a temperature decrease. OK, it is not perfect, but neither is infinite this or that, and division by zero.

Cat :)
 
Jun 1, 2020
1,764
1,503
5,060
Helio, OK - this is all conjecture, imagination, et cetera:
I doubt it qualifies as only conjecture.

More [here]. I would assume the hypothesis is testable but perhaps I'm wrong. But it's likely respected within the mainstream camp, at the very least.

My 'thought' is that, for a cyclic system, the Universe must contract (in this model) and as it approaches the BH/BB nexus it must go from disorder to order. Organisation goes from (by analogy) steam water molecules dashing around to cooler water with some mobility to ice crystals - obviously accompanied by a temperature decrease. OK, it is not perfect, but neither is infinite this or that, and division by zero.
That would likely be a necessary process. I'm unclear, however, how this would work. But, using the above, if matter oozed out of the Universe, to pre-stage the cycle, then the EH for the universe, now like a humongous BH, would shrink. So, one could argue that a shrinking EH implies diminishing entropy. Very speculative, but I'll help you where I can even if I disagree. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Anyway, it's speculative. As you rightly believe, we are outside science, Anything goes. I just don't believe ALL BBT, but I have nothing concrete to suggest where t = 0 (I mean very close to).

Cat :)
 
Jun 1, 2020
1,764
1,503
5,060
Anyway, it's speculative. As you rightly believe, we are outside science, Anything goes. I just don't believe ALL BBT, but I have nothing concrete to suggest where t = 0 (I mean very close to).
I tend to consider formal BBT as factual. As Walter Brennan would say, “ no brag, just fact!”, sometimes followed by his famous..”Dyag nabbit!”. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Jun 1, 2020
1,764
1,503
5,060
Anyway, it's speculative. As you rightly believe, we are outside science, Anything goes. I just don't believe ALL BBT, but I have nothing concrete to suggest where t = 0 (I mean very close to).
It's wise not to believe any theory is 100% right. No doubt many felt that way about Newton, so much so that his theories became labeled as laws. Einstein opened some eyes when he put limits on those laws.

I think the t=0 point is the big reason so many scientist have been adverse to BBT, especially Hoyle, who preferred a t=infinity approach. But, as you know, the t=0 point is outside the formal boundaries of BBT, though it's hard not to assume it must be there.
 
David, from your #6:

"In other words, entropy decreases as matter falls back into a black hole"

Is this different from the well known idea that entropy decreases again as the contraction phase takes hold? I can't believe that there is an "instantaneous" reduction "as matter falls back into a black hole".

I appreciate that "falling into a black hole" can take time, but where are you suggesting that the decrease begins? Close to the event horizon? Immediately after peak entropy?

Cat :)
Sorry Catastrophe I got lost at the centre of the universe.

My black hole quote was slightly out of context, not a complete idea. For in my model I don't see matter as it is now i.e. galaxies, forming any sort of collapse back to a hot dense patch. Since the contents of our big bang are currently expanding at an ever increasing rate, and there is nothing to indicate it will stop soon, I think the time scales for anything to change are enormous relative to the age. So, I think in this time all the galaxies will be black holes by then.

From previous posts you will also know that the only way I see for the expansion to stop is when it hits the rest of the matter in the whole infinite Universe, because current equations only show indefinite expansion towards heat death, which is nonsense. Again plenty of time for everything to be in black holes by then. So, I think any kind of contraction phase for a new Big Bang will mostly consist of black holes. Order, matter and energy has already partly been gathered together then in these black holes.

I don't see it as different from the contraction phase you mention. Whatever the event, gravitational expansion = increasing entropy, gravitational collapse = decreasing entropy. Same process for matter falling into black holes, gas clouds colapsing to form solar systems and collapsing matter to form a new Big Bang - simple.

I hadn't given much thought to how fast or at what stage this happens - interesting. Now that you mention it it seems most of the decrease happens when things become solid. In your freezing ice example there is still quite a lot of disorder in the liquid water before it freezes and likewise there's still a lot of disorder in the gas and dust swirling around a new star so perhaps the entropy decreases rapidly when the gas cloud condenses to rocks and forms planets. So maybe the same is true for black holes. When you say falling into a black hole can take some time, I've heard figures of years quoted somewhere, so not instantaneous, but as a wild guess, if it's anything like the first two examples then the biggest change will be when things become solid in the middle of the black hole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Aug 14, 2020
554
103
1,060
;) No one need look any further than an infinity of blackholes across all space(s) and time(s) for the "contraction phase." It is eternally in progress and infinitely decentralized plural. It just parallels "expansion phase." The two opposites are simultaneous, like the Planck Big Bang (E) and Big Crunch (M) / Big Vacuum (C^2).

Albert Einstein once told, or ask, the press, I think it was the press, not to be quoting him on things he said before he knew better.

There is something else related to all this I'd like to go into here, if I could. Sometime ago I took a hammer to an idea called "push gravity." I still think I was right to do so, but with my idea of a Universal Constant of Planck Big Bang (Energy) -- I'll leave off "collapsed Horizon" which is beginning to bother me after all these months (I'm beginning to realize it as what I term "Big Mirror" (which in differing ways has been referred to in physics before)) -- the idea of 'push energy' is increasingly pressing upon my thinking. There is no gravity to the Planck Big Bang as it most definitely is not neutral, so in and with it my modeling, at least, has to have it's energy as a constant of push energy. I'm not sure I would want to do this, but I might have to equate it to "dark energy."

I love that "Big Mirror" mirroring to infinity. With it I can have both centralism in a singular infinite (a collapsed Horizon?!) and decentralism in pluralism to infinity, at will. As with the Big Crunch (M) / Big Vacuum (C^2) in a singular infinite and blackholes to a plural infinity throughout space(s) and time(s), I can have the Planck Big Bang (E) in singular dimensional constancy and "dark" / "push" energy in a spread to infinity throughout my mirrored infinity of paralleling, simultaneous, universes (no doubt about it, my collapsing to "Horizon" is to result in "Big Mirror"; which though I had it before, I had no precise placing for it before).

The upshot is, I've now fallen in line with existence of 'push energy' (in no way a "push gravity"!). And it fits perfectly. It fits right between my two opposed gravities (my analogy of the forest (the infinite singular) as background non-local opposed to its constituency of trees (the infinite plurality) as foreground local relativity -- but the opposing having 3rd dimensional overlap. That overlap now has dimensional entity of its own in "push energy".

I owe the thinking about it to someone on the forum (when I hammered their idea of "push gravity") but I can't remember who.
--------------------------------

It's a Multiverse Universe.
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
554
103
1,060
I'm still making a mistake and owe someone an apology, possibly, regarding "push gravity."

The gravity of infinite background Universe (analogy : the forest) opposed to the infinite plurality of foreground finite universes' gravities (analogy : constituent trees of the forest), overlapping, overlaying, inlaying, could quite possibly result in an infinity of LaGrange-like point entities, in turn resulting in a good possibility of "push gravity" / at once (doubling as) what I termed above in previous post, "push energy," aka, "dark energy." Then 'virtual particle' based(?) "push energy" / "dark energy."
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
554
103
1,060
(Post #19 -- ". . . . aka 'dark energy.' Then 'virtual particle' based(?) 'push energy' / 'dark energy'")

"Dark matter" being virtual particle? Together with "dark energy" virtual entities having space-time occupation and gravitational signatures not actually their own spontaneously coinciding in space-time with actual matter and energy entities? And, naturally (again LaGrange-like), largely vaster in field than the originating (non-virtual) entities.

Because of what the four (in two planes deep (possibly more than two planes deep)) are, and would be to each other -- if I have it right above (which is strictly maybe) -- within the same space-time universe, cosmic "push" is quite possibly simultaneous with cosmic "pull" as property of universes. If right, yet another example, as I see it to be, of the Universe's finely tuned "balance of natures" simultaneous opposites.
------------------------------

It's a Multiverse Universe.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY