Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

#### ramparts

##### Guest
FractalDirac,

1) I've asked you to be respectful. Calling me "mr rampart smarty pants" because I had the audacity to question you doesn't count.
2) I will check out your paper, but classes have gotten busy and I don't currently have the time I need to put into this. That's why I've been absent lately. But in the meantime, there is something you can do, and that is get more data. You only have 16 galaxies - that's a small number, and a claim as enormous as yours deserves to be better qualified. Simply put, revolutionary physics doesn't get proven by such a small sample, and a claim as large as this is going to necessarily get a lot more scrutiny. Surely rotational speed data exist for more than just these 16 galaxies, so why not dig through the literature and add as many more galaxies as possible?

You should welcome this possibility; if you're right (as you seem convinced that you are), then you know that they'll line up on this graph, and your claim will be even stronger.

Also, one thing I noticed from your last post: you mention there's about a 40 km/s spread around your value of 200 km/s, from 180 km/s to about 220. Why is there such scatter? Does your metric quantization predict that every galaxy around 200 km/s should have the exact same rotational speed?

F

#### FractalDirac

##### Guest
Hi Ramparts,
Instead of deriving the Dirac equation (as Dirac did) from E^2=p^c^2+m^2c^4 he could have solved those problems (he talked about a lot) with his old equation by deriving it from:
ds^2=sum(g_ijdx^ids^j). Assume point source so
diagonalize as in ds^2=sum(g_iidx^ids^i).
Multiply both sides by m^2c^2/ds^2 . Define px=mcdx/ds.
Use Dirac’s old linearization step with the gij: (sqr(gxx)axdx+sqr(gyy)aydy+sqr(gyy)azdz)^2=gxxdx^2+gyydy^2+gzzdz^2. Define psi from pxpsi=-idpsi/dx.
Plug this all in together to get the new generally covariant generalization of the Dirac equation sqr(gii)axdpsi/dx+sqr(g22)aydpsi/dy+sqr(g33)azdpsi/dz+sqr(g44)Bdpsi/dt=wpsi.
Deriving the Dirac equation from E^2=p^c^2+m^2c^4 restricts you to flat space, causing you to have to add gauges, renormalization, one pathology on top of another, stopping the progress of theoretical physics dead in its tracks(see forewards of http://davidmaker.com).
Note the metric gij got into this "Dirac" equation and we are able to all that stuff I was telling you about with metrics.
The derivation from ds^2=sum(g_ijdx^ids^j) made it explicitly generally covariant (there are other ways to show general covariance of this equation as well, see chapter 5 and section 1.3).
There are more general ways to derive this new pde than this one (e.g., that have a deeper motivation fir the linearization and psi, see chapter 1) but this way is by far the easiest.
I wanted to point that this pde becomes the old Dirac pde in the flat space, zero force limit g00=1,g11=-1,g22=-1,g33=-1. The old Dirac pde is a special case of this new pde. You can do that background metric analysis with this new pde, hence the connection to that quantized metric.

I know, I know, you dark side guys have sunk too deep into the mainstream quicksand, have (intellectually at least) drowned: So I shouldn't deceive myself into expecting you to care about any of this. It was fun to write anyway.
Passed the time.
Good luck to you

R

#### ramparts

##### Guest
Wait, wait. Did this thread really just go like this?

You: Here's my cool new idea!
Me: That's nice. You should explain your notation and try to find more data.
You: You've sunk into the mainstream quicksand. Goodbye!

Oh my.

If your ideas have validity, then believe me that plenty of scientists in the "mainstream" will accept them. The "mainstream" is where the last few centuries of good ideas have come from (and yes, Einstein is absolutely included in there), and has a pretty good idea of how the universe works. It's ridiculous to think that there's a conspiracy consisting of all the many thousands of physicists and astronomers, all of whom work for relatively little pay claiming to be interested in truth but who in fact are going to ignore your brilliant new ideas though they know they're right. That just doesn't make any sense. Write your paper up succinctly in LaTeX, use as many data as you can, and submit it to a journal. Trust me that any major journal would love to publish the next big discovery, if it holds its water. By withdrawing away from the "mainstream", all you're doing is ensuring that your ideas will never see the light of day any more than any crackpot theory on some guy's website. Which would be a shame if you actually turn out to be right.

M

#### MeteorWayne

##### Guest
Yeah, it's pretty silly to post your physics shattering ideas in an online forum, when the audience you need to convince is real scientists studying the issue. That's what peer reviewed journals are for. Posting such material in an online forum is the last refuge of those who have been rejected (or in this case, apparently not even tried) to follow that path.

B

#### babea

##### Guest
MeteorWayne":36oynu8s said:
Yeah, it's pretty silly to post your physics shattering ideas in an online forum, when the audience you need to convince is real scientists studying the issue. That's what peer reviewed journals are for. Posting such material in an online forum is the last refuge of those who have been rejected (or in this case, apparently not even tried) to follow that path.

Has some merit Meteor, but that's a little harsh given that we all know what we are doing here.

Has anyone one heard of Dark Fluid? That would be a combination of Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

F

#### FractalDirac

##### Guest
Found from SING’s stellar velocity survey:
NGC 24 levels off at 3kpc, 100km/sec darned good fit for the line after that.
NGC 337 keeps climbing
NGC 1097 good line fit at 220km/sec
NGC 1512 using available data after 3kpc best fit 220km/sec
NGC 1566 190km/sec good fit
NGC 2841 good fit at 320 km/sec
NGC 3551 that’s figure23-4 and fits pretty much right on 200km/sec.
NGC 3627 levels off near 3kpc at 200km/sec being best fit.
NGC 5254 is level between 3 and 14kpc at 180km/sec
NGC 4450 and NGC 4559 are climbing
NGC 4736 has level data between .5 and 2kpc and is pretty much right on 200km/sec
If you plot these v fits you get my figure 23-6 with that 100km/sec velocity quantization
staring you right in the face....

Also above in figure 23-5
UGC385 levels at 310km/sec
NGC 801 levels off at 210km/sec
NGC 7541,2998 appear to be starting to level at 200km/sec (But cuttoff).
I also noticed tight errors bars in the MAJORITY of the cases!! Cool beans!
Quantization at 100km/sec. 200km/sec, 300km/sec is solid (and dark matter is not metric quantization).
By the way that new pde analysis (sent earlier) was done outside individual galaxys: sloan, 2df, Geller however does bulk galaxy COM z so I can't do that math in that case. I wrote an e-mail once to sloan asking them to take individial spiral galaxy crossectional doppler (as SINGs, does), they didn't reply.

In any case this is all fine and dandy but the icing on the cake is figures 23-7, 23-8, 23-9.
The Doppler asymptotes appear to go to single (flat) values. The metric quantization appears to be exact!!!!

So just use a generally covariant generalization of the Dirac equation. With the general covariance comes the metric,
with the Dirac equation comes the metric quantization. Makes sense.

In that regard he asked me about the math (I guess that what he was asking me):.

The most succinct explanation is to
instead of deriving the Dirac equation (as Dirac did)from E^2=p^c^2+m^2c^4 he should have derived it from:
ds^2=sum(g_ijdx^ids^j). [note E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4 is equivalent to the special (Minkowski metric, flat space-time) case ds^2=-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2+c^2dt^2] of this more general equation.
In any case assume a point source so diagonalize to ds^2=sum(g_iidx^ids^i).
Multiply both sides by m^2c^2/ds^2 .
Use Dirac’s linearization step (sqr(gxx)axdx+sqr(gyy)aydy+sqr(gzz)azdz)^2=gxxdx^2+gyydy^2+gzzdz^2. (he instead used the trivial gii= -1,-1,-1,1 here). Define psi from pxpsi=-idpsi/dx.
Plug this all in together to get the new generally covariant generalization of the Dirac equation
sqr(g11)axdpsi/dx+sqr(g22)aydpsi/dy+sqr(g33)azdpsi/dz+sqr(g44)Bdpsi/dt=wpsi.
(My eq.1.9, see deeper derivation of done in ch.1)
Deriving the Dirac equation from E^2=p^c^2+m^2c^4 restricts you to flat space, causing you to have to add gauges, renormalization, one pathology on top of another. You get the qed precision, strong interaction, etc directly if you do it that most general way(see chp.3, http://davidmaker.com)of keeping the possibility of nontrivial gijs..

I noticed a love for these pathologies by one an all (especially boston beans) in this dark matter discussion.
But this junk has stopped the progress of theoretical physics for about 30 years, (since the SM and its minimal SS extension were finally completed). There is nothing to love in that pathology stuff, plenty to be repeled by. Hostility to this mainstream pathology comes easy: it had better or we are never going pull ourselves out of this rut.

(thus explaining where I am coming from; why I am the way I am)

Reply to deuterium and nonbaryonic component:
Since the metric quantization gives the high halo stellar speeds and light bending we can once again use neutrinos to provide the nonbaryonic mass component mr deuterium mentioned. They don't have to hang around galaxies anymore.
(Neutrinos were ruled out in past years because they can not be held in a galaxy gravity well).
Also bnl 100GeV gold-gold collisions gave a liquid equation of state, Van der Waals type hard shell(the rH in my eq.1.9), so the big bang (or big rebound in this case) MUST occur at about 60million km radius(so no big bang from a point), just enough volume (for ~1Fermi center to center baryon separation) to contain these 10^81 hard shell baryons. So this is supernovae physics where we know most of the energy is given off as neutrinos, your NONbaryonic component.

My advice to anyone who also wants to get theoretical physics moving again is to take a course in Quantum Electrodynamics at their local university or just sit in on one.
But this time actually think!
Especially question why we should start out the derivation of the Dirac equation (the core equation of QED) with E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4 instead of the metric formulation ds^2=sum(g_ijdx^ids^j) which is the general case. By going the less general route they have made it so adhoc gauges, renormalization , free parameters,,etc..,etc., (see figure 3-1) must be added (to correct that booboo) thereby confusing, stopping theoretical physics dead in its tracks.

W

#### Woggles

##### Guest
Hi Fractal

I can see your frustration. Many great idea have been disputed and taken by “mainstream” as being crack pot or delusional. Many great people in history had experience this frustration, and had not been proven correct till many years after their pasting.

I also like to thank all of you in this discussion for giving the opportunity to dig deeper in to this world! Although Fractal, I won’t attend any local university to discovery this amazing world in which you all work in I do appreciate that you are giving out the names, such as, Quantum Electrodynamics, Minkowski metric, non baryonic, for me do my own research.

D

#### darkmatter4brains

##### Guest
Especially question why we should start out the derivation of the Dirac equation (the core equation of QED) with E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4 instead of the metric formulation ds^2=sum(g_ijdx^ids^j) which is the general case. By going the less general route they have made it so adhoc gauges, renormalization , free parameters,,etc..,etc., (see figure 3-1) must be added (to correct that booboo) thereby confusing, stopping theoretical physics dead in its tracks.

hmmm, it's been a while since I took any QED, but I sure seem to remember doing it both ways in school. We did it the first way, because it's the traditional way and quite frankly simpler, even if it is only valid within it's own domain. (That's not the only way to derive the Dirac Equation either) Also, before we rag on this too much, let's not forget that the predictive accuracy of QED has been demonstrated to a higher precision than most (any?) other theories in physics.

The second way (metric) was shown later and used as an introduction to show where attempts at a theory of quantum gravity were coming from. I thought the second approach still had many unresolved issues? Are you claiming to have solved these? You may have a nobel prize awaiting you if so

C

#### captdude

##### Guest
My personal opinion is that dark matter will go the way of the cosmic ether of space. (or the ether-drift/ether-wind) If we accept the simple fact that we do not undestand how gravity works over great distances then there is no need for dark matter. Dark matter is simply a fudge factor needed to make the math work. (look up the theories that try to explain why gravity is so weak compared to the other fundamental forces of nature. Many posit that gravities influence extends to dimensions beyond those of our 3-D space/time thereby weakening its effects locally)
If you consider that we have failed to find the higgs boson and use the standard candle method to measure great distances it is no leap of faith to think that we do not undestand how gravity works over great distances. Also, the universe seems to have an underlying elegance in its construction and dark matter seems to fail that test miserably to me.

R

#### ramparts

##### Guest
Re: Dark matter will go the way of the cosmic ether

I agree with you that there are some similarities between the dark matter and the ether of yore, but those aren't enough to say it'll go the same way. The evidence for dark matter is much stronger than the (really circumstantial) evidence for the ether ever was. Yes, you could have made the argument about gravitational origins when all we knew of dark matter was galactic rotation curves, but only a matter hypothesis explains well newer observations, like structure formation (which by all accounts requires dark matter to work as we see it) and the lovely result of the Bullet Cluster. All of the (current) gravitational alternatives to dark matter are deeply flawed, matching few or no observations, while matter is able to tie together many disparate observations. In this way, the dark matter hypothesis actually could be the more elegant one. I agree completely that the Universe is at its core beautiful, but humans, as flawed observers, often have a difficult time seeing that Beauty. There is much we don't know about dark matter and to jump to the conclusion that it is "rough and brutish" - that is, contradictory to the Universe's aesthetics - is to place a restriction on the Universe which humans really are not equipped to impose.

C

#### captdude

##### Guest

You State: Yes, you could have made the argument about gravitational origins when all we knew of dark matter was galactic rotation curves, but only a matter hypothesis explains well newer observations, like structure formation (which by all accounts requires dark matter to work as we see it) and the lovely result of the Bullet Cluster. All of the (current) gravitational alternatives to dark matter are deeply flawed, matching few or no observations.

MY POINT: If the force of gravity over great distances is misunderstood then the current gravitational alternatives to dark matter may be incorrectly interpreted. In addition if gravity indeed extends its influence into dimensions beyond our 3-D space/time (a school of thought I believe) then there may be a complete fundamental misundersanding of its mechanisms.

R

#### ramparts

##### Guest
Re: quantum entanglement &amp; other dimensions

MeteorWayne: I'm confused by your moving my post into this thread. The post I was responding to didn't get moved with it. It looks very silly now

R

#### ramparts

##### Guest
Re: quantum entanglement &amp; other dimensions

captdude: I mean, you can always say "maybe you just don't understand it!", but lots of theories have been tried, gravitational and otherwise, to explain these data, and the only one which consistently works is the cold dark matter model.

Here's a good example: are you familiar with the Bullet Cluster? Read up on it. Basically there's these two galaxy clusters that recently collided; we call them the Bullet Cluster because a shock wave created by the collision makes it look like a bullet. Anyway, we can trace out the distribution of the "normal" matter by looking at light, or, more robustly, x-rays, which are the predominant form of light emitted by hot intracluster gas. Now, we can also trace out the mass in the cluster by using something called gravitational lensing - it makes use of the fact that massive bodies will bend light from distant objects.

In most clusters, these two things would give you more or less the same result - we'd see the strongest lensing around the places that have the strongest x-ray emission. Makes sense, where there's the most gas there's the most stuff. But in the Bullet Cluster, it's a little different. In the Bullet Cluster, the gas and the mass are completely separated: the majority of the mass is concentrated closer to the center than the gas is. Now, this kind of thing was predicted beforehand by the cold dark matter theory; if you have dark matter which only interacts gravitationally, then gas (which has other interactions, like friction) will be pulled in more slowly than will the dark matter. But if the dark matter, as we expected, makes up the majority of the cluster mass, then we'll see the majority of the lensing from where dark matter is. So this result perfectly coincides with the predictions of dark matter. A gravitational theory, on the other hand, would predict that the lensing would follow the matter.

I was just having a chat about this at my group meeting tonight with some local cosmologists; the Bullet Cluster was discovered around 2006. Gravitational alternatives to dark matter were losing steam before this, but this discovery really put the nail in the coffin. There's just no way to explain that with pure gravity assuming that gravity has to come from matter. If you want to posit a gravitational theory that can exist without matter, or grow stronger as you get further from matter, then please, go ahead.

O

#### origin

##### Guest
Re: quantum entanglement &amp; other dimensions

ramparts":kohshptu said:
captdude: I mean, you can always say "maybe you just don't understand it!", but lots of theories have been tried, gravitational and otherwise, to explain these data, and the only one which consistently works is the cold dark matter model.

Here's a good example: are you familiar with the Bullet Cluster? Read up on it. Basically there's these two galaxy clusters that recently collided; we call them the Bullet Cluster because a shock wave created by the collision makes it look like a bullet. Anyway, we can trace out the distribution of the "normal" matter by looking at light, or, more robustly, x-rays, which are the predominant form of light emitted by hot intracluster gas. Now, we can also trace out the mass in the cluster by using something called gravitational lensing - it makes use of the fact that massive bodies will bend light from distant objects.

In most clusters, these two things would give you more or less the same result - we'd see the strongest lensing around the places that have the strongest x-ray emission. Makes sense, where there's the most gas there's the most stuff. But in the Bullet Cluster, it's a little different. In the Bullet Cluster, the gas and the mass are completely separated: the majority of the mass is concentrated closer to the center than the gas is. Now, this kind of thing was predicted beforehand by the cold dark matter theory; if you have dark matter which only interacts gravitationally, then gas (which has other interactions, like friction) will be pulled in more slowly than will the dark matter. But if the dark matter, as we expected, makes up the majority of the cluster mass, then we'll see the majority of the lensing from where dark matter is. So this result perfectly coincides with the predictions of dark matter. A gravitational theory, on the other hand, would predict that the lensing would follow the matter.

I was just having a chat about this at my group meeting tonight with some local cosmologists; the Bullet Cluster was discovered around 2006. Gravitational alternatives to dark matter were losing steam before this, but this discovery really put the nail in the coffin. There's just no way to explain that with pure gravity assuming that gravity has to come from matter. If you want to posit a gravitational theory that can exist without matter, or grow stronger as you get further from matter, then please, go ahead.

Good post - thanks for the analysis.

Y

#### yevaud

##### Guest
Re: quantum entanglement &amp; other dimensions

^ What he said ^

M

#### MeteorWayne

##### Guest
Re: quantum entanglement &amp; other dimensions

ramparts":2573ya51 said:
MeteorWayne: I'm confused by your moving my post into this thread. The post I was responding to didn't get moved with it. It looks very silly now

Sorry, I clicked on the wrong thread. It has been corrected. Wayne

D

#### dryson

##### Guest
Most mysteries and discoveries lay outside of the mainstream, just like the Big Bass that only mates in the water he controls because he has become smarter then the other Bass and knows that there is less room for him to grow in the mainstream because all of the other feeder fish have eaten up the good food, but in his tributary he gets the best feeder fish as well as all of the best hiding spots. This is what resides out of the mainstream, discovery and mystery that eventually becomes mainstream replacing the old stream bed with new sediment in which for the Big Bass to claim as his own.

Perhaps Dark Matter is the shell of atoms that have used all of their fuel up and just the neutrons, protons or electrons remain.

M

#### MeteorWayne

##### Guest
WTH do bass have to do with dark mattter. are you trying to drive this thread to the Unexplained???

E

#### EarthlingX

##### Guest
Allow me to try to keep this in Physics :

Wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a form of matter that is undetectable by its emitted electromagnetic radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation.

SDC search ( about 1500 hits ) :

Collection of articles on dark matter from Universe Today :
Astronomy, Dark Matter

Scary results from arXiv.org search :
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+da ... /0/all/0/1
Your query resulted in too many hits, only 1000 hits are being displayed. These are not necessarily the 1000 most recent papers. We recommend that you try a more specific search.
For most of this, i need translation to English ..

Not for this one :
Wiki : Bullet Cluster
The Bullet cluster (1E 0657-56) consists of two colliding clusters of galaxies.[1] Studies of the Bullet cluster, announced in August 2006, provide the best evidence to date for the existence of dark matter.[2]

However, while the Bullet Cluster phenomenon may provide direct evidence for dark matter on large cluster scales, it offers no specific insight into the original galaxy rotation problem. In fact, the observed ratio of visible matter to dark matter in a typical rich galaxy cluster is much lower than predicted. [12] This may indicate that the prevailing cosmological model is insufficient to describe the mass discrepancy on galaxy scales, or that its predictions about the shape of the universe are incorrect.

[12] http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/featu ... ition.html

Chandra :
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
For Release: August 21, 2006

Dark matter and normal matter have been wrenched apart by the tremendous collision of two large clusters of galaxies. The discovery, using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and other telescopes, gives direct evidence for the existence of dark matter.

Searching for Primordial Antimatter
For Release: October 30, 2008

Scientists are on the hunt for evidence of antimatter - matter's arch nemesis - leftover from the very early Universe. New results using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and Compton Gamma Ray Observatory suggest the search may have just become even more difficult.

and

Wiki : MACS J0025.4-1222
MACS J0025.4-1222 is a cluster created by the collision of two galaxy clusters. Like the earlier discovered Bullet Cluster, this cluster shows a clear separation between the centroid of the intergalactic gas (of majority of the normal, or baryonic, mass), shown in pink and the mass centroids of the colliding clusters (blue).

Chandra :
A Clash of Clusters Provides New Clue to Dark Matter
August 27, 2008: A powerful collision of galaxy clusters has been captured by NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and Chandra X-ray Observatory. The observations of the cluster known as MACS J0025.4-1222 indicate that a titanic collision has separated the dark from ordinary matter and provide an independent confirmation of a similar effect detected previously in a target dubbed the Bullet Cluster.

W

#### Woggles

##### Guest
Thanks EarthlingX, helps to get head around this stuff!!

E

#### EarthlingX

##### Guest
Woggles":ree0bzj4 said:
Thanks EarthlingX, helps to get head around this stuff!!
Welcome, i find it better than bookmarks too.

Unfortunately, it is one of those things for which the more you know, less you understand, speaking for myself, of course ..

E

#### EarthlingX

##### Guest
From SDC :
Einstein Was Right: General Relativity Confirmed
By Clara Moskowitz

posted: 10 March 2010
01:29 pm ET

Score one more for Einstein. A new study has confirmed his theory of general relativity works on extremely large scales.

The scientists found that general relativity is consistent with their observations of the universe at large scales. They also tested two competing theories – the tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS) idea, and another called f(R) (pronounced "f of r").

The quantities predicted by f(R) were somewhat different from those observed, but still fell within the margin of error of the measurements, so this theory is still a possibility. TeVeS, however, made predictions that fell outside the observational error limits, so scientists think they can probably eliminate this theory from consideration.

R

#### ramparts

##### Guest
*sigh* f(R) refers to a huge variety of gravity theories, not one monolith as this article suggests. It's also ridiculously misleading to say "A new study has confirmed his theory of general relativity works on extremely large scales" and to put "GENERAL RELATIVITY CONFIRMED" in big letters in the headline just because it's been shown to be consistent with some data and one particular crazy alternative theory was ruled out. Some more terrible science reporting from SDC...

E

#### EarthlingX

##### Guest
ramparts":li1zw3up said:
*sigh* f(R) refers to a huge variety of gravity theories, not one monolith as this article suggests. It's also ridiculously misleading to say "A new study has confirmed his theory of general relativity works on extremely large scales" and to put "GENERAL RELATIVITY CONFIRMED" in big letters in the headline just because it's been shown to be consistent with some data and one particular crazy alternative theory was ruled out. Some more terrible science reporting from SDC...
That 'more than 1000' results from arXiv.org would be some of those f(R) ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Replies
0
Views
592
Replies
0
Views
352
Replies
33
Views
3K
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
21
Views
3K