• We hope all of you have a great holiday season and an incredible New Year. Thanks so much for being part of the Space community!

Whats wrong with this theory?

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

ftorreeesst

Guest
Well im not sure this is the right place to ask this, but I know of no other one so...<br /><br />For the record I am a bit of an amateur theoretical physicist (that is to say I spend time contemplating physics, but have no higher education in the field) and I am fairly well versed in all sub-fields of physics and astronomy.<br /><br />Lately I have been devoting mental energy to the concepts of dark matter and dark energy and have a theory that seems fairly obvious and would like to know why its wrong (I assume its wrong because it seems too obvious to have been ignored and as such there must be some 'fatal' flaw lol).<br /><br />First off I removed the 'dark' from my thinking and boiled it down to the fundemental concepts that:<br /><br />A) There is more matter in the universe than we can account for (i.e. dark matter)<br /><br />B) There is a force that is causing matter to accelerate over time from the epicenter of the 'big bang' (i.e. dark energy)<br /><br />What came to mind was that maybe these two ideas are related in that this unaccounted for matter is what is causing the acceleration. This seemed to make sense because the idea of dark matter is based on gravitational force and gravity would be a known force that could cause acceleration. Feeling that a known force made more sense than looking for an entirely new one, I looked for ways to satisfy this hypothosis.<br /><br />I have come up with one that seems fairly simple without changing, adding, or augmenting any of the known laws of physics or known forces.<br /><br />I am gonna skip a lot of background info assuming that anyone that answers my question is far more knowledgeable than I and is in no need of me explaining already understood concepts lol (though I will support my theory along the way).<br /><br />In a nutshell:<br /><br />The universe is much larger than we think and what we call the universe is more akin to a super-galaxy (super-nebula might be more accurate given it was cause by an explosion...a 'hyper-nova
 
S

six_strings

Guest
Interesting, I don’t think I am qualified to point out anything wrong with your theory. But, one thing I don’t see addressed in my reading was the issue theorist have (relating to dark matter) with the unpredicted spin speeds of the galaxies outer reaches. They should be slower than observed at the outer edges…<br /><br />Reference: Dark Matter – Wikipedia [LINK]<br /> <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
F

ftorreeesst

Guest
The question is if the relatively constant speed that stars orbit a galactic center. regardless of the star's distance from the galactic center, has anything to do with gravity? <br /><br />Logic would dictate that if you increase the mass of a galaxy, you would still expect the curve to plot the same. <br /><br />I do not see how adding matter (dark or normal) to a galaxy would cause an acceleration to a stars orbital velocity inverse to its distance from the galactic center (which is what this boils down to). <br /><br />Though I agree this constant for stellar orbital velocity is a mystery (an intriging one at that), I do not agree (or can not see how lol) that this relates to dark matter. I think this is wrongly attributed and there is some other force(s) at work.<br /><br />It would make more sense that either stars have a relative constant orbital velocity throughout the universe (not exactly like, but such as light) or maybe galaxies have a self stabilizing mechanism in their formation that causes them to expand and then contract in such a manner that when are finally formed, all the stars orbit at a similar velocity. These concepts makes much more sense to me than just saying that there is some extra matter we can't see that is causing this.<br /><br />I don't agree with a number of accepted ideas of current physics (which is part of the reason im a backyard theoretical physicist lol) and having been made aware of this one its now on the list (C being the maximum obtainable velocity is another one).<br /><br />The bottom line is unless someone could explain how extra matter could cause this effect, I think its a red herring and not applicable to my theory.
 
S

six_strings

Guest
<font color="yellow">"The bottom line is unless someone could explain how extra matter could cause this effect, I think its a red herring and not applicable to my theory."</font><br /><br />Did you read the info in that link? Not applicable? Your theory dismisses dark matter. Dark matters force attributes to the orbital velocities of the outer stars in galaxies (among other things). I believe dark matter has even been observed now. <br /><br />Refer to: Scientists - Dark Matter Exists (space.com) [LINK] <br /><br />I don't think simply saying <font color="orange">"its not applicable"</font>is a valid dismissal of the issue... <br /><br />My comment is not anymore of a <font color="red"><b>red herring</b></font>/b> than your theory of a super-universe. Your explanation of there being a large mass pulling us from beyond is not provable at this point either *shrug* <br /><br /><font color="yellow">"So in one theory three mysteries are explained without adding any new forces, laws, states of matter, etc..."</font><br /><br />Well, you have not really added any new forces, laws or states of matter. But your theory is dismissing or ignoring some of them...<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I am not rejecting your theory, it warrants thought, but I think it needs some work <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
F

ftorreeesst

Guest
Yes, I did read it, but I guess I didn't express myself clearly.<br /><br />The concept of dark matter originates from a number of sources (observed discrepancies), but just because a discrepancy is observed and attributed to dark matter, doesn't mean it is.<br /><br />From my knowledge of how gravity works, claiming dark matter is the source for the unusual velocities of stars is illogical.<br /><br />What it says is that if you add mass to a galaxy it wiil cause stars to orbit at a higher velocity in inverse proportion to its distance from the galatic center (it will cause stars that are farther from the center to a higher velocity, since they should be moving slower, than those closer, so that all will move at a relative equal velocity).<br /><br />To my understanding of gravity there is no mechanism for this and unless someone can show there is, I believe this anomoly is wrongly attributed to dark matter. <br /><br />I am not dismissing dark matter, but I am dismissing the one anomoly attributed to it untill it is shown that there is some mechanism to make it work.<br /><br />I think you took my comments in regards to a potential misattributed anomoly personally. I did not say anything you said was a red herring I said current science atributing this is a red herring.<br /><br />I apologies if you took my comment personally and assure you my point was dirrected to the science and not your reference to it.<br />
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Hmm. That's somewhat of a misinterpretation of Dark Matter with respect to the behavior of observed galactic rotations. What it's saying is that there are large amount of dark matter in/near the outer regions of these galaxies, and that is what is causing the abnormal rotational rates we observe.<br /><br />While Dark Matter is supposed to be a good deal of the unobserved universe (except for it's effects), it doesn't (again, according to theory) imply it's evenly distributed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
F

ftorreeesst

Guest
I understand.<br /><br />What I am saying is that I see no mechanism to make this work.<br /><br />Please explain to me how adding matter (dark or otherwise) to the outer reaches of a galaxy will cause this anomoly.<br /><br />The only way I can see to make such a mechanism is to create a (dark) matter halo around a galaxy that is orbiting faster than the the rotation of the galaxy itself, thus creating a gravitional pull from the outside inward. <br /><br />First off there is absolutely no evidence for this what so ever.<br /><br />Secondly this 'halo' would have to have a very specific velocity in order to cause the outer stars to move at the same rate as the inner ones and this is even more unlikely in my opinion. If it was only some galaxies this could be attributed to random chance, but the fact that this occurs in all/most galaxies says there is a very consistant mechanism occuring. One would have to show that every galaxy has this halo and that this halo is some how orbiting faster than the rotation of the galaxy (what would cause this?) and at an exact velocity that directly compensates for the differences in the expect velocities of stars close to and distant from the galactic center.<br /><br />Being a firm believer in Occam's Razor I find this far to complex to be a reasonable explaination.<br /><br />Again, I maybe be speaking from ignorance and would like to know if there is some mechanism I am unaware of that makes this work.
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
<i>The only way I can see to make such a mechanism is to create a (dark) matter halo around a galaxy that is orbiting faster than the the rotation of the galaxy itself, thus creating a gravitional pull from the outside inward.</i><br /><br />That's succintly correct.<br /><br /><i>First off there is absolutely no evidence for this what so ever.</i><br /><br />There are now well theorized observations of the effects of Dark Matter.<br /><br />Actually, there is nothing in the observations that say that the outer regions of any observed galaxy now rotate and the same velocity as the inner; only that their rotation rates are anomolously high. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
It's not really going faster than matter closer in, it's just going faster than it would if all the matter were in the same spot as the visible mass of the galaxy.<br />The speed distribution fits correctly if the mass of the galaxy is spread over a larger area than the visible mass.<br /><br />Hope that's clear enough. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
F

ftorreeesst

Guest
I was following the link Six Strings gave me and if you look here:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem<br /><br />This shows a fairly straight line velocity for all stars regardless of distance from galactic center. I used this graph as my source and if the graph is incorrect I apologies for trusting Wiki too much lol. <br /><br />If this graph is correct then it would make more sense that velocity is established during galactic formation causing this across the board consistent velocity than from some external source, no?
 
F

ftorreeesst

Guest
Another reason I have a hard time with the 'dark matter halo' is that it would have to be fairly massive to have an effect on star velocity on such a large scale (it would have to be a LOT of matter). <br /><br />If such a halo did exist and was massive enough to cause the observed effects, then one would expect this to be observable when looking at spiral galaxies from the plain of rotation and cause an obsuring of the light. <br /><br />To my knowledge no such obscuring has not been observed.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
It's dark matter. It doesn't obscure light.<br />It does bend light, in accordance with Einstein's theory. That is another form of proof being searched for with greater precision now.<br />And it is massive, it's far more than the amount of visible mass in galaxies, as I understand it. That's what makes the effect so noticeable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
F

ftorreeesst

Guest
Please explain how (a massive amount of) matter (dark or otherwise) between an observer and a light source would not obsure it?<br /><br />The 'dark' means it doesn't reflect light, but if it is matter (and not energy for example) and it is between an obsurver and a source of light, then it will cause a blockage of photons (obscuring).<br /><br />
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
It does not interact with light. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
F

ftorreeesst

Guest
Sorry I edited my last post while you responded.<br /><br />If its matter it interacts with light. <br /><br />Like I said above, the 'dark' is in reference to its non-reflectiveness. <br /><br />To now say we have matter in amounts massive enough to accelerate the velocity of millions of stars, but photons pass through it unaffected is entering the world of fantasy and leaving science behind
 
F

ftorreeesst

Guest
I think following the flow of this side discussion, one can see why I discount attributing this anomoly of stellar orbital velocity to what is being refered to as dark matter. <br /><br />To make it work, here is the scenerio:<br /><br />All galaxies have a dark matter halo that is so massive that it can alter the velocity of millions of stars and orbits at a rate that is not only greater than the galactic rotation velocity, but is at a velocity that almost exactly causes stars in the outer reaches of the galaxy to orbit at the same rate as those close to the galactic center. Not only is this matter non-reflective but photons pass through it unobsured except for possibly some gravitation bending.<br /><br />This is approaching absurdity!
 
S

six_strings

Guest
Hmmm... check this qoute from the wiki definition I gave you about dark matter earlier <font color="orange">"The composition of dark matter is unknown, but may include new elementary particles such as WIMPs and axions, ordinary and heavy neutrinos, dwarf stars and planets collectively called MACHOs, and clouds of nonluminous gas. Current evidence favors models in which the primary component of dark matter is new elementary particles, collectively called nonbaryonic dark matter."</font><br /><br />Then check this [LINK] Is about the components of dark matter... <br /><br />I also do have problems understanding dark matter, it just seems like something <font color="black">made up</font>to make our current laws and theories work... But there are strong observations to support it *shrug* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
F

ftorreeesst

Guest
Exactly!<br /><br />We can either come up with some contorted new form of matter made up of previously unobserved particles thats acts in a manner that is different than matter as we know it.<br /><br />Or we can assume in this instance there is some simpler more logical explaination.<br /><br />Occam's Razor....
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
THe point of wimps is that they don't interact with ordinary matter (except through the weak nuclear force) or electromagnetism. Dark refers to their being hard to detect, not that they affect light by blocking it. They just don't interact with light at all, so from an electromagnetic standpoint, it's like they are not there.<br />They are allegedly very heavy, so do have much gravity.<br /><br />BY the way, I am no expert on this subject, just vaguely understand the theory as described.<br /><br />Regarding galaxies outer speeds, the halo is not pulling the outer stars around faster, it's just that the dark halo is so big, and so much of the mass is outside the visible part, that the velocity curve is stretched out enough that it's still a straight line within the visible sphere. Further out, the speeds do slow, but there's no "light" matter to see it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
S

six_strings

Guest
A television show was on Science Channel today about supermassive black holes... The short story was that the black holes at the center of some (all?) galaxies was somehow responsible for the unexpected orbital speeds of the outer reaches of the galaxy... Go figure, (crow feathers suck) Sorry I can't give a reference link for this....<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
If the total radiation (electromagnetic radiation + gravitational radiation + etc.) is equal to:<br /><br />m_{defect}*c^2<br /><br />AND<br /><br />2GM^2/r<br /><br />Then:<br /><br />v_{actual}^2 / v_{expected from visible mass}^2 = (d au / dt)^2 = (proper time interval / coordinate time interval)^2<br /><br />Implying a time acceleration.<br /><br />Provided that:<br /><br />(proper time / coordinate time)^2 = sqrt(1-2GM/rc^2)<br /><br />To show that I am wrong would be to show that the energy of <b>total</b> emitted radiation (in all of its forms) as a result of gravity does not equal 2GM^2/r. But if does equal that, then I have the simplest possible explanation for thing.<br /><br />The details behind the hypothesis are at my wiki page:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kmarinas86 <br /><br />That's where all the arguments against it should be directed at.
 
S

six_strings

Guest
Ya, what kmar said! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Like I have a clue what that means! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
F

ftorreeesst

Guest
I guess since we have gone so far down a side path I should re-express the point.<br /><br />Dark matter and dark energy are terms made up to explain discrepencies between theory and observation. <br /><br />Dark energey is pretty straight foward in that it is being used to explain the acceleration over time of galaxies from the big bang to present (the current theory is that.gravity polorizes at great distances and pushes instead of pulls)<br /><br />Dark matter is a little more complex in that it is being used to explain multiple discrepancies that may not even be related at all (I personally do not believe they are and my arguements in regards to stellar velocities is a prime example).<br /><br />These are mysteries that currently on the cutting edge of astrophysics and have fairly rough current explainations.<br /><br />I have come up with a theory the possibly explains dark energy and some aspects of dark matter (those that I can not easily discount as being unrealated) in a simpler and unified manner (as welll as the above mention bonus mystery).<br /><br />I am looking for holes in my theory and the only one presented thus far is the stellar velocity, but it is pretty easy to discount to other likely sources.<br /><br />The whole point is I don't agree with the current theories and science itself is wrangling with them as well. But people are trying to disprove/find error with my theory using equally unproven theories as opposed to know facts and to be honest I am getting a little frustrated lol. The whole point is that these theories have holes (which is why i'm looking for another explaination) and to use them as arguements against mine defeats the whole purpose.<br /><br />I guess I came here hoping an astrophysicist would see my thread and go "Oh, this can't work because we know...". Or on the off chance that I actually stumbled upon a viable explaination that needs to be tested and pursued as the possible actual answer to these mysteries.<br /><br />Is there an astrophys
 
S

six_strings

Guest
It's a discussion board, what do you expect?<br />The reason I brought it up in the first place is because it has relevance to your theory if you are to discount dark matter. Whether dark matter is proven or not... Although like I stated before an tried to post links to all these references. There are observations strongly supporting it...<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

six_strings

Guest
If you'll accept a question from a non-astrophysicist that's not related to dark matter <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Wouldn't we still be able to observe the older universe? Since it's older the energy emited by it would still be able to reach us, no?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS