126 replies to this topic

[RingFenceTheCity]

Mathematicians Offer Unified Theory of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Altering Einstein Field Equations


Very interesting article and concept. I think they are on the right course. It fits with the idea of non-Newtonian matter being created at the centre of stars and spread to the planets via supernovae events and comet impacts imo. This fits with the scale limitations mentioned . Someone tell Mr Wang for me please!

Newton would have assumed that stars created non-Newtonian matter at their cores due to their spin rate and super high gravity field. Older stars would therefore have more of this extra force on the plane of rotation. This fits with the spiral galaxy rotation curves which have a central bulge of young stars and an outer disk of older stars which rotate faster than expected(!). Is the Main Seqeunce of Star Classification missing the onset of creation of non-Newtonian matter? I think it is. The evidence fits like a glove imo.

[sepulchrave]

Neat story!

For those interested, the actual article can be found here.

SunnyBlues, on 11 September 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

It fits with the idea of non-Newtonian matter being created at the centre of stars and spread to the planets via supernovae events and comet impacts imo. This fits with the scale limitations mentioned . Someone tell Mr Wang for me please!

Not really. For one thing, I think ``non-Newtonian'' is not the word you are looking for here. In the context of matter, Newtonian means matter where the stress-strain relationship is linear and unshifted. Beer is an example of a ``non-Newtonian'' fluid.

I am pretty sure the word you are looking for is ``non-Baryonic'', as you have used in the past when discussing your theories.

SunnyBlues, on 11 September 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

Newton would have assumed that stars created non-Newtonian matter at their cores due to their spin rate and super high gravity field.

I kind of doubt that Newton knew about stellar nucleosynthesis, but ok.

SunnyBlues, on 11 September 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

Older stars would therefore have more of this extra force on the plane of rotation.

How does this follow from your previous statement? Unless you are defining ``non-Newtonian'' matter as matter which magically does what ever I need it to do to fit my ideas about gravity.

SunnyBlues, on 11 September 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

This fits with the spiral galaxy rotation curves which have a central bulge of young stars and an outer disk of older stars which rotate faster than expected(!).

Now not only are you making the leap that ``non-Newtonian'' matter increases the gravitational force in the plane of rotation of a star, you are also claiming that the rotation axis of most stars is parallel with the rotation axis of the galaxy, and that this obeys the simple Newtonian rules for rotation speed under simple Newtonian gravity!

SunnyBlues, on 11 September 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

Is the Main Seqeunce of Star Classification missing the onset of creation of non-Newtonian matter? I think it is. The evidence fits like a glove imo.

What evidence?

You do understand that the article that you cite above claims that dark energy and dark matter are different polarities of a scalar field right? This is not something that would be made in the core of a star (or otherwise).

The evidence in favour of dark matter (and dark energy) pretty much require that it (whatever ``it'' is) be something that is not confined to the cores of stars.

[RingFenceTheCity]

Okay, thanks for the interest, link and informative comments. I'm not going to convince you in a few words so let's start at the beginning with a neat solution for the Earth flyby anomaly. For all three of the big energy increases the moon is in the beginning of the last quarter, heading towards a new moon. This implies that the moon was infront of the incoming spacecraft as it crosses the equatorial plane. I'm making the case that the moon contains exotic matter which produces a force of attraction which acts only on it's plane of rotation which interacts strongly with other exotic matter as well as weakly with the centre-bodied cubic geometry of iron. This hypothesis then solves the mystery of why there is also cases of small *negative* energy changes, because the moon is in a different part of its orbit and *behind* the spacecraft during it's crossing of Earth's equator.

Try and be a little open-minded before you reply please. Just because you are familiar with Einstein's GR etc doesn't make you superior to this idea. I've had physicists within the FQXi essay competition who agree with me about the moon's influence on flyby's.

The big question is then: Why is it the moon and not the Earth which is the primary factor in flyby anomalies? Therefore, why is the moon's internal composition so different to the Earth's?

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 12 September 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

This implies that the moon was infront of the incoming spacecraft as it crosses the equatorial plane. I'm making the case that the moon contains exotic matter which produces a force of attraction which acts only on it's plane of rotation which interacts strongly with other exotic matter as well as weakly with the centre-bodied cubic geometry of iron. This hypothesis then solves the mystery of why there is also cases of small *negative* energy changes, because the moon is in a different part of its orbit and *behind* the spacecraft during it's crossing of Earth's equator.

Which equatorial plane? The Earth's or the Moon's?

[StarMountainKid]

Quote

6. The universe with uniform distributed matter leads to identically zero scalar
potential energy, and is unstable. It is this instability that leads to the
existence of the dark matter and dark energy, and consequently the high
non-homogeneity of the universe

and,

Quote

Second, associated with the scalar potential ϕ is the scalar potential energy
density c4
8G, which represents a new type of energy/force caused by the nonuniform
distribution of matter in the universe. This scalar potential energy density
varies as the galaxies move and matter of the universe redistributes. Like gravity,
it affects every part of the universe as a field.

From sepulchrave's link to the PDF.

I'm a little confused on these points. In the first quote, does this mean that, because a homogenious universe without dark matter/dark energy is unstable, dark matter/dark energy is spontaneously created?

And likewise, in the second quote, souldn't it read,  "new type of energy/force causes the nonuniform distribution of matter in the universe", and not "the nonuniform distribution of matter in the universe causes the new type of energy/force"?

[sepulchrave]

StarMountainKid, on 12 September 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

I'm a little confused on these points. In the first quote, does this mean that, because a homogenious universe without dark matter/dark energy is unstable, dark matter/dark energy is spontaneously created?

I am not an expert in this sort of thing, but I think it the authors are suggesting that dark matter/dark energy are results of spontaneous polarization rather than spontaneous creation.

In other words, I think the authors are saying there is no such thing as dark matter/dark energy (in a classical sense, anyway), only negative or positive amplitudes of this underlying scalar field.

I have not studied the article, but I think the authors suggest that the total amplitude of this scalar field (over the entire Universe) is and always has been a constant, but locally it may be positive (dark matter-like, i.e. in the halos of galaxies) or negative (dark energy-like, i.e. in between galaxies).

One analogue to this is electromagnetism: the current argument is that the Universe has a magnetic field that reaches everywhere, however in most places this field is close to zero. If you turn on an electromagnet you don't spontaneously create a magnetic field, rather you spontaneously polarize the magnetic field: creating a region that is positive (at one end of the magnet) and negative (at the other end).

StarMountainKid, on 12 September 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

And likewise, in the second quote, souldn't it read,  "new type of energy/force causes the nonuniform distribution of matter in the universe", and not "the nonuniform distribution of matter in the universe causes the new type of energy/force"?

I don't think so... (Again, I have not studied the paper in depth so this may be wrong)

Because the scalar field has positive and negative parts, it is able to balance itself. Therefore, a homogeneous equilibrium (for just this scalar field, anyway) is stable.

Gravity is mutually attractive, however, so once matter starts forming clumps the tendency is to form larger clumps rather than smooth back out (so in contrast, a homogeneous equilibrium of matter is unstable under gravity alone).

So I think once matter started to form clumps under gravity, this caused the scalar field to start deviating from equilibrium (which of course has an effect on matter and gravity, which of course leads to more deviations in the field, etc.).

[StarMountainKid]

Ok, thanks sepulchrave.

Quote

The universe with uniform distributed matter leads to identically zero scalar
potential energy, and is unstable.

From the PDF.

So, I suppose this potential energy would obey quantum uncertainty, and therefore the energy of the field can not be zero. Would this be the instability that the authors are talking about? In this sense, perhapse this energy field would have some influence in the non-nomogeniety of the matter in the universe besides the influence of gravity. (?)

[sepulchrave]

StarMountainKid, on 12 September 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

Ok, thanks sepulchrave.


From the PDF.

So, I suppose this potential energy would obey quantum uncertainty, and therefore the energy of the field can not be zero. Would this be the instability that the authors are talking about? In this sense, perhapse this energy field would have some influence in the non-nomogeniety of the matter in the universe besides the influence of gravity. (?)

I don't think so. Assuming this field can be quantized, then you would expect a non-zero energy of the field, but you couldn't predict whether the field would have a positive or negative amplitude.

If the field had a negative amplitude, then yes - it would assist matter becoming ``clumpy'' at that location. But if the field had a positive amplitude then it would be repulsive, and help ``smooth out'' matter at that location.

I think the quantum fluctuations of this field would be uncoupled from the fluctuations of matter (i.e. you would not expect a fluctuation of negative amplitude to more frequently occur in fluctuations of denser matter, since that correlation would reduce the uncertainty in the field energy), so over any significant period of time and any significant volume of space I do not think it would have any net effect.

That is my opinion, anyway.

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 12 September 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

Which equatorial plane? The Earth's or the Moon's?

The Earth's of course. I'm saying that the Earth-flyby spacecraft crosses the Earth's equatorial plane. Three big increases in energy all occur when the moon is just above the equatorial plane and in front of the incoming spacecraft. Note that Wikipedia also states that when a spacecraft didn't cross the equatorial plane, no change in enrgy was recorded.

[RingFenceTheCity]

Sepulchrave? Is this too much for you to understand?

[sepulchrave]

Sorry for the late reply, I was travelling.

SunnyBlues, on 13 September 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

The Earth's of course. I'm saying that the Earth-flyby spacecraft crosses the Earth's equatorial plane. Three big increases in energy all occur when the moon is just above the equatorial plane and in front of the incoming spacecraft. Note that Wikipedia also states that when a spacecraft didn't cross the equatorial plane, no change in enrgy was recorded.

So you claim that exotic matter in the Moon has increased gravity in the rotational plane of the Earth?

How does that make sense?

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 14 September 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

Sorry for the late reply, I was travelling.


So you claim that exotic matter in the Moon has increased gravity in the rotational plane of the Earth?

How does that make sense?

No, I'm saying that the exotic matter in the Moon has increased gravity in it's rotational plane, which affects the spacecraft in Earth-flybys when the moon is in-line with the Earth's equatorial plane.

The lunar influence on earth flybys fits with the problems experienced by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin as they descended to the moon's surface. Were they in the grip of the lunar exotic matter? I think they were.

Neil Armstrong and the Landing of the Eagle UPDATED

Quote

Eagle had overshot the landing zone, Home Plate, by four miles. A slight navigational error and a faster than intended descent speed accounted for Eagle missing its planned touchdown site in the Sea of Tranquility.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 15 September 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

No, I'm saying that the exotic matter in the Moon has increased gravity in it's rotational plane, which affects the spacecraft in Earth-flybys when the moon is in-line with the Earth's equatorial plane.

I still don't understand why there is an effect when the spacecraft are in the Earth's equatorial plane.

According to your theory, should not the effect occur when the spacecraft are in the Moon's equatorial plane?

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 15 September 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

I still don't understand why there is an effect when the spacecraft are in the Earth's equatorial plane.

According to your theory, should not the effect occur when the spacecraft are in the Moon's equatorial plane?

The spacecraft cross the Earth's equatorial plane first, then cross the moon's equatorial plane just after. This is the position of the moon when the three big increases in energy occur. The moon's equatorial plane is close to the Earth's equator every two weeks which gives us the spring tides.  If the moon is behind the incoming spacecraft, then a negative energy change is possible. You now need to look up the phases of the moon on all the dates of the flyby data given in Wikipedia.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 18 September 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

The spacecraft cross the Earth's equatorial plane first, then cross the moon's equatorial plane just after. This is the position of the moon when the three big increases in energy occur. The moon's equatorial plane is close to the Earth's equator every two weeks which gives us the spring tides.

So I guess according to you there is significant ``non-baryonic'' matter at the core of the Earth?

``Regular matter'' is gravitationally symmetric (at least since Earth's gravitomagnetism is negligible), so if the equatorial plane of a ``regular'' object has no special bearing on that object's gravity.

SunnyBlues, on 18 September 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

If the moon is behind the incoming spacecraft, then a negative energy change is possible. You now need to look up the phases of the moon on all the dates of the flyby data given in Wikipedia.

I need to look up the phases of the moon ? I suppose you don't have to because you know your theory is true, and don't need any actual evidence.

Well from the wiki page you linked to, positive energy changes were reported for Gallileo 1, NEAR, Rosetta-1, and Messenger. Negative energy changes were reported for Cassini.

From this article (see Figure 12, page 20), you can see that when Gallileo was closest to the earth, it was furthest from the moon (along its trajectory, anyway, as evidenced by the local maximum in the lunar potential energy). NEAR and Rosetta-1 were approaching the moon, while Cassini and Messenger were moving away from the moon.

For Gallileo's gravity boost, the Moon's equatorial plane was close to crossing the Earth's equatorial plane (it was only about 3 degrees off, see Table 2, page 12), but in all other cases the Moon was rather far from crossing the Earth's equatorial plane.

So why did Cassini lose velocity and Messenger gain velocity if both were moving away from the Moon?