Not infinite density, just high enough that we know we'd need a quantum theory of gravity to describe it.

As far as I'm concerned, this isn't particularly an improvement. Instead of saying that we're not sure where the matter making up our universe came from, you're saying it came from an alternate universe that we have no current way to detect. Still, I'll agree that this doesn't break your idea. What gives your idea problems are the observations that it contradicts and the other well-tested principles of physics that it contradicts.

No, you're wrong there. If you determine the mass of a galaxy or cluster from gravitational lensing, you get a result consistent with the total mass including the contribution from dark matter. That's long been used as an additional check on the existence of dark matter itself (if dark matter were only apparent from the orbital dynamics and not from additional tests such as gravitational lensing and the temperature of intracluster gas, we'd be more likely to suspect a problem with our laws of dynamics and less likely to suspect additional matter that we just can't see).

So again you seem to be suggesting that there's some kind of matter that doesn't behave as though it had mass (it's "HIDDEN"). So again I'll point out the general relativity doesn't work that way. If it has mass, and it's present, it will behave as though it has mass, including having gravitational effects. The fact that the individual particles might be quite small (and actually, the Planck mass isn't small; those would be extremely massive particles) doesn't make a difference, since it's the total mass that matters in gravitational interactions. Heck, if it's travelling at close to the speed of light ("c", not "C"), it will be extremely energetic, so it's gravitational effects would be stronger, not weaker.

Maybe. But claiming that "one day" your theory will be well supported experimentally doesn't really help to actually provide that experimental support.

That happened to me last time. I'd almost finished, and then I accidentally hit the "back" button on the browser and lost it. So then I had to go back through and try to remember what I had said. I hate it when that happens.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

Actually, looking back at exactly what "was" said, you are probably correct, and I should have worded it slightly differently. So I will do that.

Here is the pertinent part... [What if the other universes are not so "unobservable" after all? What if we have misinterpreted the observations, and the force we interpret as "dark matter" is really gravity leaking out of the other universes, and into ours? I can readily imagine a multi-universe theory, which includes such an effect, and therefore is not simply "consistent" with observation, but actually predicts the observed effects we call dark matter & dark energy, as consequences of the communication of information between universes.]

In the first Bold he just says "Dark Matter" when refering to Gravity may be leaking to our universe, and then in the second Bold he uses them both together, as communication of information between universes.

So I probably should have included a statement saying that since my model is stating that all of 'space' is made up of Planck Mass Inert Collisionless Non-Baryonic Dark Matter, as a BGF, traveling at "C", that of course DE was not needed.
However, since I knew this was being posted to Grey, I knew that he already understood this!

[what do you intend to mean by this?]

Sure, I would be happy to clarify.

I am simply saying that all the Planck size/mass Dark matter 'leaking' into all the Voids, through the Einstein-Rosen Bridges, makes up the 96% of OUR universe, that all of that Non-Baryonic DM is traveling at "C".
I simply said that it is 'hidden' because it has never been found and identified or seen or detected. That is because they have always looked for a "river" as any potential aether, and that has always been in relation to the speed of light. SO, it has been 'Hidden' all this time because the 'river' of the Planck Mass Dark Matter is the 'Carrier' of light/photons, the photons being massless carried by the minute planck mass DM that makes up all of space.

[particular distibution of DM]

What do you mean by a particular distribution? How are you going to get that DM to 'curve space' by itself? The Lens is the curvature of space, and there is no place in the DM space that is curved unless there is baryonic matter there to curve it.
It is collisionless with itself and baryonic matter, and so just as Einstein said...it takes ponderable matter to distort space/time. The only exception to this would be a MBH or a stellar black hole all by itself in space.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

No, I am not wrong here. I just said it took baryonic matter to make a gravitational lens and you say NO...when we look at galaxies and clusters!!!
That "IS" baryonic Matter 'curving space/time'. The Dark Matter of space is being 'curved' by the baryonic matter to make the DM LENS.
See the answer to Nereid as well.

See my answer to Nereid for the 'hidden' part.

If Planck size/mass is 10^-33, are you saying there is a sub-Planck mass/size smaller than this?

Most of the time I am fine. BUT, TOOO many times I get an error window for my Internet explorer that says that an illegal operation has been performed and then I get one chance by clicking to the side, but if it comes up again I lose everything. That is one reason you see so many edits (if you even notice) on some of my posts, because if that comes up I start getting antsy and will just click POST, and then hit edit and come back and keep working.

But I get frustrated when it beats me to it!!! Or I forget because I am so into the answering, and then I lose a lot that has taken (I am pretty slow) 45, 60, minutes and sometimes longer.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

You have stated this as a problem from the beginning and in thinking about this more, this is YOUR "assumed" problem.

Obviously the galaxies are there, and working just fine, with no angular momentum problems that have ever been seen (although finding the rotational curves for the outer stars was a surprise (Vera Rubin) and then the Nuker Team finding that the MBH mass was in direct correlation to the speeds of the outer stars was another surprise, and that evidently, that relationship began at the birth of the MBH and 'somewhere' back in the outer stars formation history. And I am saying that that relationship was forged when the MBH was created, along with the Gamma Radiation that created the electrons/protons>HI/He.
So obviously the MBH's are able to rotate and dent space/time in such a way as to corral "ENOUGH" of the electrons/protons>HI/He to a galactic spiral, so there must not be a problem!

SO, just saying that there is a angular momentum problem doesn't make it so!

So, if you think there is one, please "define specifically" what you think that problem might be.

In addition to knowing that no one has an answer to these...
[How fast is 'space' traveling where the GRB's are exploding (and they are NOT in a galaxy!)? Is it traveling at 'C' or is it slower? At what angle is the gravity of 'space' coming together (Membranes touching) to cause the Torque to create a MBH millions to billions of sol masses? How is 'space' being rotated by the making of said MBH to cause a spiral shape to take form? How far is the majority of the Gamma Radiation acyually traveling away from the newly created MBH and how fast does the spiral shape and gravity well retard its outward flow? Shall I go on?]

It is an accumulation of the evidences I have found and seeing the big picture and how it fits together that I find compelling. When I first came to BAUT, I only had the one basic evidence that GRB's could be the birth of galaxies, but since then, with the excellent help of MANY people on this forum, I have accumulated a much deeper understanding (STILL nowhere close enough!!!). Once I figured out (and I have no idea why this took ME sooooo long to figure out!!!) that all you had to do was...shrink a Galaxy down to a point, and that that was the correct lookback to find what is contained in a Naked Singularity...the baryonic matter from the Gamma Radiation...From the BIGGEST EXPLOSIONS IN THE UNIVERSE SINCE THE BIG BANG...(I know, just NEWs HYPE).

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Yes, you are. Here's a link that took me a couple seconds to find. Here's the opening paragraph (and note that the empahsis is theirs, not mine):
If you want me to, I can find whole hosts of peer-reviewed papers calculating the mass of dark matter in clusters and galaxies from gravitational lensing. Yes, in most cases it's true that there is also baryonic matter present, but if the dark matter did not contribute (in fact, dominate!) the lensing effects, we'd see gravitational lensing based on a mass equal to what we'd expect for teh baryonic matter content of such galaxies. That's absolutely not what we see.

Here you're going to have problems. If you start denying observational evidence that contradicts your ideas, nobody is going to take you seriously.

I'm afraid Nereid is right; as far as general relativity is concerned with gravitational effects, mass is mass is mass.

I don't know the context of this quote, so I'm not quite sure what Einstein meant here, but I expect he wasn't distinguishing "ponderable matter" from some kind of "non-ponderable" matter. Why do I think that? Because you're making a really typical mistake here. You're looking at a verbal statement from Einstein, interpreting it, and assuming that the statement is the theory. But, if you look at the actual mathematics of general relativity, you'll see clearly that there is no distinction in how different types of matter are treated as far as the gravitational effects they produce. The curvature of spacetime is determined by the mass distribution (or, to be precise, the stress-energy tensor), and there is no provision in the theory itself to include separate kinds of matter that don't cause gravitational lensing. So I know that Einstein couldn't have intended to imply different kinds of matter (some of which might not produce gravitational lensing), because if he had intended that, the math to handle it would be there.

I assume by 10^-33 you mean the Planck length which is about 1.62 x 10^-33 cm, extremely small. But the Planck mass is about 21.8 micrograms. It's a huge mass on the scale of subatomic particles. It's more like the mass of a macroscopic grain of sand. In fact, the Planck mass is the mass a black hole would have if its Schwarzschild radius were the Planck length. So, you seemed to be implying that these particles where somehow so small they travelled "under the radar", and I was pointing out that particles of the Planck mass would instead be the most massive subatomic particles ever, by many orders of magnitude.

That is true. So, we don't expect any theory of galaxy formation to include a large violation of angular momentum conservation, since there's no observational basis for such a violation.

Or, your theory is critically flawed, and galaxies and black holes formed in a manner completely different from what you envision. I'm afraid that simply stating that galaxies and central black holes clearly form, surmising that they must therefore have formed the way you think they did, and that therefore any flaws in your theory must have solutions is not science. If there are problems with your idea, you actually have to address them and show that they have a resolution.

I believe I've described this before, so I'll give a simplified version that should be enough to show the problem. If you want a more complex analysis, I can do that, but I still think it would be really worthwhile for you to work out some of the math yourself. You don't seem to believe me (insisting that it's "my" problem), and I think that working out the details would help you understand what is going on.

So, here goes. The angular momentum of an object or mass distribution around an axis is equal to the distance from the axis multiplied by the linear momentum of the object. Well, actually, it's equal to the portion of the linear momentum that is perpendicular to the radius (in other words, a vector cross product, L = r x p). So for an object in a circular orbit, the entire linear momentum would be used, while an object moving radially inward or outward has no angular momentum at all, regardless of how fast it is going.

Now, your idea has all of the matter that makes up the galaxy coming from the center, starting as a gamma ray burst. It doesn't matter whether the particles start as gamma rays and later turn into other particles, because in all those interactions, angular momentum would still be conserved, so the details of how that all works aren't important for this calculation. Now, if the matter making up the galaxy was closer to the center in the past, it had to have been moving faster. That should be obvious; if L hasn't changed, and r was smaller in the past, p must have been larger. Let's figure out how much faster for a typical bit of galactic matter, the solar system. We orbit the galaxy at about 220 km/s, and current estimates put us about 27,000 light years from the galactic center. So let's do as you suggest, and "shrink a GALAXY (the Baryonic Matter, the stars and stuff) down to a point, at the core". At some point, the material that would eventually make up the solar system would have been just one light year away from the center. So with r 27,000 times smaller, p has to be 27,000 times larger, and we find that the orbital velocity would have been 5,900,000 km/s, or nearly 20 times the speed of light. Okay, okay, it wouldn't have had to go faster than the speed of light; instead, that means that I should be using the relativistic formula for momentum with a gamma of about 20, giving me something like 99.87% of light speed. Now, even if we assume that the entire mass of the Milky Way (about 6 x 10¹¹ solar masses) is compressed inside that one light year sphere, the escape velocity works out to about 130,000 km/s. That's a substantial fraction of the speed of light, but it's tiny compared to a speed with a gamma of 20. In order to have enough angular momentum to account for the orbit where it ends up, the material that would become the solar system has to have about 170 times as much energy as it needs to escape the galaxy altogether.

So, there's our problem. If the material that formed the galaxy is moving slowly enough to stay bound, it has nowhere near the needed angular momentum to move outward to reach a stable orbit where we see it today. If, on the other hand, the material that formed the galaxy did have enough angular momentum to account for what we see today, it would have been moving so quickly that it would have just kept expanding, and we still wouldn't have a galaxy. This is all pretty basic mechanics, and note that it doesn't really rely on the details of how the material got there, or the nature of the central black hole. We didn't "rewind" all the way to a point (the situation would get even worse if we did). All we did was show that an expanding cloud of material cannot form a stable rotating galaxy like those we see without a massive violation of conservation of angular momentum. Note in particular that this can't be solved by just having the central black hole start out rotating unbelievably fast, because we've seen that this just leads to the proto-galaxy blowing itself apart.

The fact that neither you nor anyone else knows whether some model using these ideas could solve the angular momentum problem does not provide evidence that there is, in fact, a solution to that problem.

I'm afraid that "because I find the big picture compelling" isn't evidence that there is a solution to this problem either. Science actually deals with evidence. If you want to claim that there is a solution to a problem with your idea, you actually have to show such a solution. Now, I suppose you can just keep trying to tell me that this is "my" problem and not yours, but I can assure you that if you can't defend your idea against problems that I find on a casual inspection, you won't get far with it. Not because I'm somehow personally important, but because the standard I'm asking you to meet is well below the standard that any peer reviewed journal would hold.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

There I added in red 'non-baryonic', does that help. I actually think we are saying the same thing now.

BUT, I am saying that "IF" the baryonic matter "WASN'T THERE" that the Non-Baryonic Dark Matter would/could not be 'curved' to 'cause the lens'!


[but I expect he wasn't distinguishing "ponderable matter" from some kind of "non-ponderable" matter.]

In a way he was. He was distinguishing that space/time was 'curved' by ponderable matter. So knowing there was a curvature of 'space/time' caused by baryonic matter, he surmised that that 'curvature' of the space/time would cause a lensing effect.

WELL, Space/Time is simply Non-Baryonic Dark Matter, you know, WIMPS (My PMIDM) that hold the galaxies and galaxy clusters together, and cause gravitational lensing when in the presence of baryonic (Ponderable) matter. BUT, these WIMPS (PMIDM) are not just 23% of the Universe, they are 96% of the Universe....But wait...that's right...they are also "IN" all the Baryonic Matter, as its MASS, so there is the other 4% and again makes the Universe 100% Gravity!

This is because the current FLWR paradigm does not have a background Gravity Field traveling at "C", as an Aether, NOT because GR math cannot be modeled to use it correctly!

You are drawing a distinction here that I don't think he ever meant or maybe even ever thought about. He knew that the curvature was caused by baryonic matter, so you are making conclusions about 'where there is no baryonic matter' and what he thought about that.

[(some of which might not produce gravitational lensing),]

Where ever there is Non-baryonic Dark Matter that has NO baryonic matter in it, there can be no lensing. Because that Non-baryonic matter cannot be made to clump, UNLESS enough of it comes together, from different Voids, as membranes and goes KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Grey, this is actually quite good! I expected (in addition to the things you mentioned quite a while back in our Emails) that there would be Naked Singularity 'space expansion' (as Nereid did in the beginning) and a Mini-Inflation scenario (as antoniseb did).

And of course all of these things are issues of one magnitude or another.

Here is how I explained it in my paper...
So, here is the real problem. All those questions I posed above, that need to be answered before this can be answered, are REAL! And where you said if we take the galaxy 'All' the way down to a point, it even gets worse, I agree.
But that is also where the solution lies.

But even much more than that, my model for the Unification has to be accepted first, so that SPACE being 96% DM and traveling at "C" (Coming from the MBH's) can be accepted to even start working on the problem correctly!
Which is certainly "ONE" reason the Bolded *Simulation Models* have any type of galaxy structure that is 'spun up' with a MBH will fail!!!
Just like Jim Peebles said, "I respect Carlos Frenk alot and he is a dear friend", but....and then as he and Disney both agreed...turning the knobs until you get what you are looking for is not........[fill in the blank].

So NO minor maths is easily going to show how this angular momentum problem is solved by the creation of a million to billions of sol mass MBH, with HUGELY Massive gravity waves/fronts/Membranes coming together in DM "space' traveling at "C".

Yes it definitely does. UNLESS, 0f course it has become too enraptured by current thinking. Science has become trapped by this rapture and has lost site of numerous things. Mainstream is convinced that the BB/Inflation/CMBR MUST mean what they think it does, and Anti-BBers are convinced that GR/Black Holes/Singualrities do NOT exist. BUT alas, such has been the human condition for many millenia, but it is pretty amazing to me that we know this so well now, and yet it is happening again!
Like I have said numerous times, The Big Bang is just the very FIRST attempt at trying to apply Einsteins General and Special Relativity to the Universe as a whole, and what are the odds that it is right on the first try???????????

All I have suggested since I got here a year and a half ago, is this possible?

And it shows the possibilities of...

What GRB's could be and why................................which is NOT known
How Massive Black Holes are made..........................which is not known
How Galaxies are formed........................................whic h is not known
What the Dark Matter Galaxy is and why..................which is not known
What the ghost Galaxy is and why..........................which is not known

With some pretty decent evidence and sound and self consistent reasoning and yes, even logic.

In addition, the "POSSIBILITY" that the Gamma Radiation is getting here this way, is a perfectly viable hypothesis that could change the whole paradigm of the Unification of GR and QFT, of which I have also (With the understanding that this is all beneath the Event Horizons of MBHs amd in the Planck Regime) deliniated a very self consistent and with what I consider pretty surprising evidence, with quotes from Lisa Randall, Tim Thompson and a String/"M" Theorist showing a possible Einstein conection, viable solution for how 'space' gets here and using the master himself, Einstein-Rosen Bridges.
Which, IMHO, is much more elegant and simple than the Parallel dimensions/universes, that the String/"M" Theorists have literally been forced into.

Now, should I have ALL the answers to all of this....I don't think so...I am just asking...shouldn't this be explored thoroughly?

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Then you are changing general relativity. General relativity predicts that matter of any type does not require other matter to be present for it to exert its own gravitational influence. That leads to a whole host of questions. How much baryonic matter has to be present for the gravitational influence of dark matter to exert itself, how are the field equations of general relativity changed to accomodate this distinction between types of matter, and so forth. If you're going to require modifications to general relativity to make your idea work, you'll have to detail what those modifications are. And if you're going to vehemently deny that you are making changes to general relativity, as you've done in the past, then you'll have to back off of this claim that dark matter only exerts a gravitational effect if baryonic matter is also present.

No, that's really just you reading more into the quote than is there. Yes, general relativity says that matter curves spacetime. But I'll repeat, if Einstein's theory had included different kinds of curvature of spacetime for some hypothetical different kinds of matter, or thought there was some other kind of matter that would only curve spacetime when in the presence of baryonic matter, it would be in the theory. Can you show me where, in the actual mathematics of the theory, he did this?

No, I didn't say anything about cosmological models using general relativity. If you think general relativity can be modified to include matter that does not exert a gravitational influence by itself, you'll have to show (with the detailed mathematics how to do so). And if you think that general relativity already has that built in, you'll have to show (in the mathematics of the actual theory) where it does so. And if you can't do either of those, you'll have to stop making the claim that general relativity includes any provision for matter that does not exert a gravitational influence.

Nope. You need to take another look at general relativity. Not only does baryonic matter curve spacetime, but so do photons, so does the kinetic energy of particles, so does the energy associated with a gravitational field itself, so does electrical potential energy, and so forth. The curvature of space is calculated from the stress-energy tensor, and that includes energy contributions from all matter and energy (as well as other contributions from momentum, pressure, and other values). As far as general relativity is concerned, if it has mass or energy, it curves spacetime, whether it's "ponderable" or not.

Actually, that's not true either. CDM models have dark matter forming first, and that attracting baryonic matter, and those models work quite well. It's true that, since it doesn't radiate, dark matter cannot collapse as much as normal matter, but that does not mean that it cannot aggregate at all. Actually, if you model a collection of particles that do not interact and are bound solely by gravity, you find that they will tend to collect in a rough sphere with a density that goes roughly like 1/r. That turns out to be just about right to account for observed rotation curves of galaxies.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

This has nothing quantitative. So, no actual demonstration that your model can work to explain galactic rotation, merely another claim that it can, but without evidence. Again, since you "are not a GR expert and can only guess at the some of the complex relationships that are taking place here", you actually can't possibly know whether the rules of general relativity would allow a central black hole to "spin up" a galaxy. That's because the way we figure out what the result of applying a certain theory to a given situation is by working it out and seeing what the result is. So until we've done that, we still don't know the result. Schwarzschild didn't get his name attached to a metric by just saying that general relativity could be applied to a spherically symmetric mass distribution. Rather, he actually worked out what general relativity predicts for such a mass distribution.

Maybe that's where a solution lies. But you can't possibly know that, because, as you yourself state, you don't know enough about a whole host of questions to even begin working it out. Again, science deals with evidence. If you want to claim that there is a way to solve the problem, you have to actually be able to show such a solution.

No, that's not the way science works. You're effectively saying, "Here everyone - you're the experts, I've got this great idea except that I haven't worked out any of the details yet, so I don't know if it actually works. But if you drop the stuff that you're working on and instead devote yourself to this, I'm sure you'll be able to figure out a solution, even though at first glance my idea involves major violations of the basic conservation laws." You'll have to solve at least the really obvious problems before people would consider the idea.

Then you're going to need to do something more than minor math. Here's the thing. Without solving this and other readily apparent problems (like the expected inverse relationship between galactic density and distance), your idea is not even viable.

No, actually, even when there's a well-accepted standard model, science still deals with evidence. Alternative ideas that are presented are expected to have observational support.

The reason that the mainstream concordance model is the mainstream model is because it actually fits the observations really well. Any model that you might propose to replace it has to work at least that well. A model with an unsolved massive violation of angular momentum conservation simply does not work well.

No actually, the steady state model was first. But regardless, science doesn't dismiss theories because the odds of being right on the first try are low. Science dismisses theories when there is clear observational evidence that there is an insurmountable problem, and usually only when there is a replacement that can explain things better. Right now, your idea has serious problems in explaining how galaxies formed, whereas the CDM model can show how galaxies formed quite well.

Right now, it looks like no. Unless there's a solution to the angular momentum problem, it's almost certainly not the way galaxies formed.

Though there are still questions about GRB's, there are certainly workable models.

As I've pointed out several times, there are several good models for how central black holes of galaxies form. You continue to try to paint this as a mystery that mainstream scientists have no clue about, but that's simply not the case.

No, actually, you have an idea about how galaxies might be formed, but on a cursory analysis, it turns out that your idea has a serious problem with angular momentum conservation. Until that's solved, your idea does not actually tell us how galaxies formed. It predicts that either galaxies should be much smaller than they are, or else that they should go flying apart and never form in the first place. On the other hand, the CDM model can show how galaxies are formed quite well.

VirgoHI21 is an intriguing object, to be sure, but since a CDM model assumes that it's the dark matter that drives galaxy formation, it can easily include galaxies which have a lower than normal amount of baryonic matter without any real problems. In fact, since the CDM models predicted more dark matter halos than were observed as galaxies, there were actually predictions that there would be dark matter halos without stars well before VirgoHI21 was found. Look here and here for examples. Far from being some strange object that threw existing models of galaxy formation out the window, VirgoHI21 is completely compatible with a CDM model of galaxy formation.

NGC 2915 is also a fascinating object, and we're not sure why there hasn't been any star formation, though it's thought that it has something to do with the galaxy's relative isolation (no tidal stresses to induce clumping of gas). Of course, your idea is unable to model how galaxies and spiral structure form, since you haven't worked out any of the quantitative details, so showing how this particular galaxy formed is beyond the capabilities of your idea, too.

Certainly studying objects like these can tell us more about galaxy formation, but they don't represent some kind of major problem with the mainstream model.

Scientists all decide for themselves what avenues of research they will study. That's why, for example, there are some physicists taht don't do any work on string theory, because they don't think it worth their effort, even though other physicists think it is very promising. So, no, you don't have to have all the answers. However, you do have to have enough answers to convince people that it should be explored. At a bare minimum, that means showing that it works as well as the current theory, and that means quantitatively. So, yes, you'd have to do at least enough to show that the angular momentum problem can be surmounted (in the process developing an actual model giving the details of galaxy formation), and you'd have to address the galactic density problem, and probably other issues after that. It's a lot of work. If you want to get an idea of just how much work, look at what the proponents of non-mainstream ideas that show some significant following (such as MOND, or Arp's ideas about quasars) have done. MOND is a nice example; you can find papers like this one that actually looks heavily at theory, but also shows rotation curve fits of actual galaxies. A paper on your alternate idea of galaxy formation should probably be comparable to this.

It is not the responsibility of mainstream astronomers to take your rough idea and work out the details to see if it would work. It is your responsibility to work out the details sufficiently to show that it can work. Again, it may seem like I'm not giving you a break, but if I can find unanswered problems with your idea, you'd better believe that the community of astronomers as a whole will find even more. And if your only response is to acknowledge that the problems exist, but then insist that someone else should do the work to figure out whether they can be resolved, you aren't likely to get any volunteers. You won't get a break because you're nice, or because you find your idea more elegant than the big bang. Your idea will only be taken seriously if you can show with hard numbers that it works.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

Grey, you can't say I am "CHANGING" GR and then say that in a given situation GR "PREDICTS"

Relax...It's just gravity, and you are already doing it for specific cases that you can "SEE". Are they not showing the rotational curves of galaxies and that there is the need for extra gravity...Non-Baryonic DM gravity...two different types the baryonic and the non-baryonic???

All you have to do is realize that ALL of space is Non-baryonic Dark Matter traveling at "C", and everything will be just fine. That's right, "ALL" of space is collisionless, traveling at "C" and goes right through ALL the Baryonic Matter!!!

Accept of course when Kabooooooooooom a Radiation Event goes off spiraling millions to billions of that Non-baryonic DM 'space' into a MBH and "FREEZING", "Stopping", or "Slowing that "C" traveling Non-baryonic DM, so that the electrons/protons can be created, or a Supernova goes Kaboom, again slowing 'space' so more elements can get their mass from the "BASE" element...the Non-Baryonic DM, that makes up all of our space!

So, if I say that there is NO gravitational radiation, and that gravity CANNOT make more Gravity, and that Space CANNOT make more Space, am I changing General Relativity? NO< NO< NO... I am changing how the Big Bang defines the universe!!!

Actually, saying that there is Gravitational Radiation, makes Gravity a "FORCE", which it is definitely NOT!

The real problem is, that from day one, since the big bang was formulated, they have had to "MAKE UP" 'space', which has made "ALL" of it "Unphysical" Pseudo-space!!! False Vacuums, stress energy tensors, Hubble Flow, Dark Energy/Anti-Gravity, mathematically constructed "SPACE"...NONE of it is 'real'!!!

The only part that has become 'somewhat' real, is the Non-Baryonic Dark Matter, but they can only 'see' it, when they can associate it with Baryonic Matter by its gravitational influence!!! Galaxy rotation curves and cluster dynamics...........BUT........it makes up ALL of space, and so when, just as R. Cahill has done (and he is using GR, although he does NOT realize that the Background Gravity Field (BGF) is traveling at "C", so he thinks he is proving Albert wrong!), they start using the BGF correctly, it will just automatically be the same as Gravitational radiation, gravity making more gravity, and space making more space is just the Inflow of the DM coming into the Voids! The Gravity will still be there, but the energy will be taken out, because that is the WHOLE PROBLEM with the UNIVERSE Starting off as ENERGY!
Gravity is NOT a force, it is just mass, a whole universe worth, with the energy stored kinetically as Collisionless Non-Baryonic Dark Matter.

That makes 'space' PHYSICAL, that Makes SPACE a background gravity field traveling at "C", that when two fronts of the Inflow, that is turbulant (Membranes) come together and touch, MAKES a PHYSICAL Radiation BURST and a PHYSICAL MBH and the galaxy that surrounds it. And YES, that is all still GR, it is just not BIG BANG GR!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

And Here is all about the Cold Dark Matter model!!!


http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1997/ph410/l19.html

It is amazing what can be found on the internet, and as I have suggested, Constrain, Constrain, Constraining things to fit what are being 'considered' as OBSERVATIONS when they were CONSTRAINED in the first place, does NOT get to what is really happening!!!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Er, RussT, you do realise that the page you are quoting from is nearly 10 years old, don't you?

In particular, none of the WMAP data was available when this was written (WMAP hadn't even been launched, and maybe not even funded), and that the observations which lead to the conclusions about dark energy hadn't even been made when this was written?

Of course I can. Let's look at the whole exchange.

So, general relativity says that any massive object exerts a gravitational influence, regardless of whether or not there is other matter (or some other kind of matter) present or not. You, on the other hand, are saying that dark matter has mass and/or energy, but does not exert a gravitational influence unless there is also baryonic matter present. Therefore, you are saying that the universe does not follow the rules of general relativity as they stand, and so if we wanted to have a theory that would correctly describe the universe, we would have to modify general relativity. In other words, I know that the idea you are espousing requires modifications to general relativity because it assumes things that are inconsistent with what general relativity predicts.

Most current models of dark matter are based on the idea that there is matter that does not interact via the electromagnetic force, and probably not the strong force either. It might interact via the weak force. In any of these models, it definitely interacts gravitationally just like any other particles with mass, just as described by general relativity. There is simply no provision in general relativity as it stands now for particles that have mass or energy but do not exert a gravitational influence.

Neither I nor any mainstream scientist will assume that everything will work out fine simply because you've told us so. That's not how science works. You would actually have to show, quantitatively, that it does work out. For example, if you think this idea can explain galactic rotation curves, you'd have to analyze the rotation curves of a sample of galaxies using this idea as a basis, and actually show that it works.

Yes, yes, yes! General relativity predicts that there will be gravitational radiation (and although it has not been directly detected, there is some very nice binary pulsar data that supports it indirectly), it predicts that gravitational potential energy is itself a source of gravity (one of the reasons gravity is trickier to handle than electromagnetism), and it predicts that space can expand (though I'm not exactly sure that's what you're implying is "space making more space"). Those results, especially the first two, have absolutely nothing to do with big bang cosmology. I'm not sure how to get you to understand this unless you do more research into general relativity. That gravity couples to itself and that gravitational radiation exist arise directly from the principles of general realtivity. Remember that when Einstein first created the theory, there was no big bang theory, and yet these were part of general relativity.

Not at all. Einstein didn't consider gravity to be a force at all, yet his theory (based on considering gravity to be essentially the geometry of space) predicts gravitational radiation.

Let's start with one of these. The stress-energy tensor is part of general relativity, and as such it predates the big bang theory. And all the components of the tensor are real, measurbale quantities. It's nothing more than a mathematical notation that allows it to be used easily in equations. The tensor notation is common in general relativity, and to a large extent it's really just a shorthand way of writing multiple simultaneous equations that all hold, just like a vector equation could be considered three simultaneous equations (one for each coordinate system). It's as real as talking about energy or pressure or velocity. All concepts invented by us, to be sure, but directly connected to clearly measurable quantities.

But it seems like your problem is with the concepts introduced by the concordance model. If we want to launch into a discussion of whether space is "real", we might want to make a side thread to focus just on that question. But Einstein certainly thought it was at least real enough that you could describe its curvature. The idea of vacuum energy comes not only from cosmological considerations, but from quantum thoery, and it has measurable effects (like the Casimir effect). The fact that you don't like the big bang model is not a valid scientific reason to dismiss it.

As we've agreed, since we cannot observe dark matter directly, pretty much by definition, we can only deduce its presence by the effects it has on matter that we can see.

Again, you're claiming that your idea can duplicate some of the predictions of general relativity, but you aren't demonstrating it. For example, the best indirect evidence for gravitational waves comes from binary pulsar observations, like this one. Do you think you can match the observations as well using your idea, and without using the calculations of gravitational radiation from general relativity? If you can, you'll actually have to demonstrate that for anyone to take such a claim seriously. If you can't, then your idea doesn't fit the observations as well.

You're welcome to keep claiming this, but the claim by itself won't convince anyone. Are you sure that you can successfully explain galactic rotation curves? Great, analyze a few galactic rotation curves and demonstrate that. Do you think you can explain cluster dynamics? Fabulous, pick a few clusters and show how the observed velocities arise naturally from your idea. Convinced that the mass of a galaxy started at a central point and expanded outward? Wonderful, show how a galaxy can form that way without massive violations of angular momentum conservation. Galaxies appear one at a time, randomly dispersed through space? Maybe; explain why we don't see more of them closer to us. Showing quantitatively that the results of a new idea match observations is the only way a new idea becomes a mainstream idea.

No, as we've seen above, it's not general relativity. You are directly saying that some of the results from general relativity (developed before the big bang model existed, in most cases) are incorrect. I hadn't even noticed before this that you disputed the existence of gravitational radiation, but that's just one example of where you're assuming that general relativity is wrong. You're welcome to promote whatever you want as an idea, but to continue to insist that some of the basic results of general relativity are instead conclusions from a big bang model, even though those results were derived from general relativity before the big bang model existed. That's simply incorrect.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

As Nereid points out, that's a really old page, and even then it's lecture notes for an undergraduate physics course. Not necessarily a terrible source, but certainly an out of date one, and certainly not "all about the Cold Dark Matter model". But still, it's pretty intriguing that you quoted from that page.

There are several possibilities suggested, some of which are used in models today (most people think there's a mixture of hot and cold dark matter, for example, if only because we know that neutrinos behave as hot dark matter). But this one is the most interesting. Here they're suggesting that a positive cosmological constant would deal with the problem. Of course, just a year later, the big news in astronomy was independent observation of an accelerated expansion, leading to a suggestion that there is a positive cosmological constant. It's actually very good support for a theory when you're at a point thinking, "This isn't quite working. We could save it if we assumed X, but nobody really thinks X is true, so that's not so good.", and then it turns out that X is true.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

Let's parse this.

[So, general relativity says that any massive object exerts a gravitational influence, regardless of whether or not there is other matter (or some other kind of matter) present or not.]

Yes, so GR is simply saying that there is 'curved' space/time when ponderable matter (baryonic matter) is there to curve it. When there is NO baryonic matter there to curve...space/time is "FLAT"!

[You, on the other hand, are saying that dark matter has mass and/or energy, but does not exert a gravitational influence unless there is also baryonic matter present.]

So, all I am saying is that when baryonic matter is not present, space/time if "FLAT"!!! So, how is that 'different' than GR?????????????

NO, it does not mean that.

If I say that the 96% of the universe that is not baryonic matter, is "ALL" Non-Baryonic Dark Matter and that all of that DM is traveling at "C", does that alter/change GR???

NO, it simply replaces the 73% DE with DM makes all of 'space' physical, and since it is all traveling at "C" (which Cahill does NOT realize) it makes all of space an Aether traveling at "C", and totally preserves SR! What all the arguements about the MM experiments have NEVER realized, is that if the Ather is traveling at "C", or in other words, is the actual "Carrier" of the light, then they could never distinguish one from the other, could they???

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

No. General relativity says there is curved spacetime when there is any kind of matter or energy present. There is absolutely no requirement that it be baryonic.

Because general relativity says that spacetime will not be flat if there is matter or energy present, even if none of it is baryonic matter.

Yes, it really does.

No, I don't think it does. However, if you then say that this dark matter only curves spacetime when in the presence of baryonic matter, that does alter general relativity.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

Grey, you are not thinking of this correctly.

When Einstein used the words 'ponderable matter', he was differentiating between baryonic matter (Stars, planets, clouds of HI/HII, dust) and space/time. Many, including Einstein at different times, have thought that there could be an Aether. SO, whatever space/time is made up of (Vacuum, any kind of Aether that meets the requirements to be an Aether, including Non-Baryonic Dark Matter) is "SPACE/TIME" and is curved by ponderable Matter. SO, YES, where ever there is Non-baryonic Dark Matter (YES, all the "Particles" have Planck size mass, so there is gravity, like I have said, it is a dimmesionless background gravity field, traveling at "C"), IT IS SPACE/TIME, and can only be 'curved' IF baryonic Matter is there to curve it.

The best way to see this is to look at the dynamics of a rich cluster of galaxies. From Nereids CDM thread we know that only 2% of the mass of the entire cluster is in the galaxies stars themselves, and being generous, there is another~2% in the gases and dust, all the rest of the MASS that makes up the cluster is in WHAT.....Non-baryonic Dark Matter. And we have already talked about where do the spherical galaxy halos stop (Ans I said that the halo doesn't really stop, it's just that is how it being 'seen', because of it's gravitational relation to that one galaxy), and the DM for the cluster consideration come into play in relation to that, so ALL the DM in the cluster is what is being curved to make the gravitational lens.

What you are really not getting here, is that even though we 'see' the gravitational effects (Gravity just being there!) of DM for the rotation curves of galaxies and that there MUST be more gravity there for the cluster dynamics, THAT GRAVITY is in the 'curvature of space/time' and is the Non-Baryonic Dark Matter, and it is traveling at "C", EVERYWHERE.

Well then, how can the universe be flat if 23% is DM and 73% is DE and 4% is baryonic???


Good, we can build on this.

And let's go back here to do that.

Good, I'll take "as Valid"! Those are few and far between

And I also said...
[Originally Posted by RussT
Not only that, I am doing way more than just postulating that 'Space" is getting here from another universe! I am showing pretty precisely where in the other universe it is coming from, what makes it, why it makes it Planck size, and where it is entering our universe and by what mechanism(s).]

Over the last week I have been able to 'realize' a few more of what I consider pretty profound things about showing that the Einstein-Rosen Bridges is/are the way that 'Space'/Gravity gets here and is the start of our Universe.

In addition to the above, the Planck size collionless Non-baryonic DM coming from the MBH's "SETS" the most important constant for all of SR and GR, The Speed Of Light "C", for the whole universe and IS the "Initiating Original Motion" for our whole Universe! Everything slows down from there!

Now, Space, (Planck size collionless Non-baryonic DM), coming in from different Voids, Traveling at "C", has a Inflow and a Turbulance, but is basically 'smooth' everywhere.

SO, where does the "SPIN"/Rotation come from? (Jeff Root started a thread on this not too long ago)

And the answer falls right out...When MBH's are created!


All of this came from asking myself one simple question..."IF", the Matter did NOT get here all at once, then how did it get here????????????

AND, I believed mainstream!!! Nucleosynthesis from High Energy Gamma Radiation!!!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

If you want to claim that Einstein thought there was some kind of matter making up space, you'll have to find a reference to provide evidence. And if you want to claim that the equations of general relativity can model a spacetime made of particles with mass and energy, but that don't contribute to a gravitational field, you'll have to likewise provide evidence by showing where in those equations Einstein madae any provision for such. You're claiming that general relativity works fine to handle this, but you've also said that you don't understand general relativity well enough to actually work it out yourself. So I think you don't actually know whether or not it would work, and you're reading something into that statement from Einstein that isn't really there. Can you provide me the source for the quote so I can see the context myself?

You keep claiming that this idea of yours would allow us to explain galactic rotation curves and cluster dynamics. But you also continue not providing any evidence that you've actually tried to work this out for even a single galaxy or cluster to check whether it actually does work.

We were speaking of local curvature, specifically the gravitational attraction which is caused by that curvature. Yes, there is also a global curvature, which could be positive, negative, or zero, depending on a variety of details. When we talk about that global curvature, we are ignoring the much smaller local curvature so that you can speak about the universe as a whole without getting sidetracked by the gravitational attraction from individual stars or even galaxies. That's just like talking about the overall shape of the Earth while ignoring the existence of mountains and oceans on the surface. I assumed that you understood that, so that I didn't need to carefully spell it out; I apologize if my statement was imprecise.

However, you've pounced on my lack of precision without actually addressing my point. That may win you points in a debate, by trying to make your opponent seem foolish to the audience, but science is not a debate. I'll say it again, general relativity simply has no provision for the existence of mass or energy which does not have a gravitational effect. Trying to claim that it can indeed model such matter while simultaneously claiming that it need not be modified in any way is a logical error.

Remember, though, that although it does not require modifications of general relativity to postulate new types of particles, it does require modifications to postulate particles which have mass or energy and yet do not interact gravitationally unless there are other types of particles nearby. You'd need to specify the details of such an interaction, and modify the equations that describe the curvature of space based on those details.

You're still neglecting an important step in the scientific process. That is, you've come up with a creative model for some process, in this case galaxy formation. The next thing to do is actually do the hard work of checking to see whether that model matches observations in a quantitative manner. I'll quote myself.

The problem is that without working out solutions, we have no way to know whether your idea actually works or if it's just one more of many creative ideas that fails the test of matching observation. On several occasions you've said that it would take someone with more understanding of the theories involved to work out the problems above. I'm reminded of an anecdote from Isaac Asimov. Apparently people would often come up to him at some event that he was attending and say something like, "I've got this great idea for a book! Maybe you could take the idea and write it up and we could split the profits." Asimov would invariably reply that he came up with great ideas for books all the time, but that he didn't have enough time to write them all as it was. And then he'd say, "So why don't I give you one of those ideas, you can write the book, and you can keep the profits entirely for yourself." The point is that doing the work to confirm that the idea actually works, quantitatively, is not a little extra things that someone else can handle. It's an absolutely crucial part of presenting a new idea, and is the only way to convince anyone to take your idea seriously.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

My Bold.


The Bold is the whole key here. I have repeatedly said the the Planck-size Collisionless/Inert Non-Baryonic Dark Matter, that makes up 96% of the universe "IS" a Backround Gravity Field (BGF).

Now, "IF" this 96% DM was standing still (Not moving), or if it were moving at some speed well below "c", we would be able to see/detect it (MM experiment, and some even weirder stuff, wakes behind moving masses, etc). and that is what Cahill "THINKS" he has done, thus he thinks he is showing Einstein wrong! As do many that think they see the slightest deviation in anything!

BUT, if this BGF is moving at "c", then SR is preserved, and it simply "Becomes" the Space/Time that Einstein was saying is warped/distorted/curved and becomes the "Carrier" of the light/photons/EM all moving at "c". Einstein did NOT have to specifically say anything about Non-baryonic DM being curved space/time for this to be Valid! Nor were there any prior calculations necessary for a BGF to be space/time. Heck, all the equations have been dealing with the "Fabric" of space just fine. This will just wind up being a "MORE" accurate defining of the exact gravity that exists,rather than 'gravitational radiation' and 'gravity making gravity'.


Okay, here is the maths for this............BUT, it is crucial that several things are Understood here!!!
First, in the current paradigm for the explanation of the galaxy rotation curves "USING" Non-baryonic DM as the 'extra' gravity keeping the stars from speeding out of the galaxy, there are NO definitions of what the DM is doing! It is just there, as 'extra gravity'! And If you want to talk about the 'whole DM Halo sphere' and what you think it is 'doing', we can address that!
Second, and as I have said 'strongly' before, Cahill DOES NOT understand that this BGF is traveling at the Speed of Light!!! So he has a lot of other things wrong!!! Also, I am NOT convinced that his use of the Fine Structure Constant (FSC) as the "Make up" of the BGF is correct either. I mostly think that it doesn't have a chance of being the "BASE" Element for how the electrons and protons get their mass, but I haven't rukles it out completely either! BUT, it perfectly MIMICS what the BGF would be like when Baryonic Matter 'curves' it!!! Just like 'garvitational radiation' and 'gravity making gravity' is doing right now in place of the 'real' DM BGF that is there!
SO, what he doesn't have wrong, is that there IS a 2 parameter gravity field, 3 space that does exist, BUT because he doesn't know that it is traveling at "c", he is confused about the REST of what he thinks he is seeing!

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005physics...8175C
Supermassive black holes have been discovered at the centers of galaxies, and also in globular clusters. The data shows correlations between the black hole mass and the elliptical galaxy mass or globular cluster mass. It is shown that this correlation is accurately predicted by a theory of gravity which includes the new dynamics of self-interacting space. In spiral galaxies this dynamics is shown to explain the so-called `dark matter' rotation-curve anomaly, and also explains the earth based bore-hole g anomaly data. Together these effects imply that the strength of the self-interaction dynamics is determined by the fine structure constant. This has major implications for fundamental physics and cosmology. My Bold.

Yes, of course, but there is another way I can relate this for you, more locally.

In a cluster of galaxies the entire region of that cluster is curved space/time due to all of the galaxies mass in that cluster curving that space/time, which is why we always see the heaviest galaxies in the center/or close to it. So, when you are close/on the fringe of a galaxy, you are in a more curved space/time due to the gravity well of that galaxy, but as you go farther and farther away towards another galaxy, you are in flatter and flatter space/time, even though you are still in the total curvature space/time of the cluster. ANd that same thing would apply to the solar system, close to plabets and farther away, but you are still in the suns Toatal gravity well. BUT once you get to the fringes of the Voids, you are bordering on the edge of the clusters well, and once beyond that, you are in FLAT space/time!

Sorry!!! I didn't really mean to do that, and since that has happened to me too often here, I know how it feels, So again, my apologies if that is the way it came across.

My bold.

I have specified That there is NO interaction. They are collisionless to themselves and Baryonic Matter, they go right through everything, just like collisionless Non-Baryonic Dark Matter Planck size particles are known to do.

So, when they determine that Neutrinos have MASS, is GR going to be "Revised"???

Yes, I have become painfully more aware of this over the last year and 1/2!!!

I guess I just naively believed that there wouldn't be so many so totally convinced of
the initial conditions for the beginning of the universe as a whole! And that the Anti- BBer's would be SO convinced, that because they didn't think that the BB Naked Singularity was correct, that THEY wouldn't/souldn't believe that any singularities/Black holes/SMBH's or GR was right!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Except that when I asked why, if the voids are filled with this stuff, we don't see gravitational lensing, you responded that it does not exert a gravitational force by itself, but only did so when there was also baryonic matter present.

General relativity does not describe the spacetime as being made of massive particles moving at lightspeed, and the math just isn't there to support it. If you want to modify general relativity to do so, it might be possible, but general relativity as it stands certainly doesn't work that way.

Do I understand that you are simultaneously proposing that Cahill's math is what we should use for your idea, while also saying that Cahill has several crucial things wrong? That doesn't make much sense to me. Especially since I don't see mention in his paper of spacetime being made of massive particles moving at lightspeed. So that doesn't work as a demonstration of the math for your own idea.

However, I will say this. The detailed work that Cahill has put into trying to support his ideas is about the minimum level you'd need to be doing. Notice that he does try to provide mathematical analysis based on his ideas, and attempts to show quantitatively that it would match observations. It remains to be seen, of course, whether his work is actually sound - I'll take a look at both his work and see if anyone else that references it and see what I can find out. But whether his work is sound or not, it's an example of the sort of work you'd need to be doing to present your idea in a manner that might convince someone.

As I've said, if you think that your idea will work to explain galactic rotation curves and cluster dynamics, you'd actually have to anaylze a few galaxies and clusters, using your idea, and show that your predictions match observation.

They're collisionless, but you've said they only interact gravitationally when there is also baryonic matter present. So you'd need to provide details of how much baryonic matter there needs to be, how nearby the baryonic matter needs to be to trigger the gravitational interaction from these particles, whether once this baryonic matter is around these new particles behave the same as any other as far as gravity is concerned or if it's somehow different (maybe inverse cube instead of inverse square, who knows?), and any other details. Then you'd need to analyze a few galaxies to see if your model would actually work - quantitatively - to predict the observed apparent dark matter, since you've said that it can.

Neutrinos, both from theory and from what we've been able to judge from observation and experiment, interact with gravity just like every other particle that has energy or mass. Nobody has ever suggested that neutrinos behave differently with respect to gravity than any other particles do. You, on the other hand, are proposing particles that normally do not interact gravitationally, even though they have mass, unless there is also baryonic matter present.

I'm not certain why you would expect scientists to discard existing models which work quite well in favor of your idea, when you seem unwilling or unable to show quantitatively that your idea can match the observations as well or better than those existing models. You idea seems to remove some concepts that you find objectionable in the big bang model (although it also introduces other things which, to anyone other than yourself, are probably at least as objectionable), but all of that is really completely irrelevant without good quantitative agreement with observation. Problems like the angular momentum issue or the expected variation of galactic density with distance won't just be ignored or go away. They would need to be addressed before anyone from the mainstream took your idea seriously.

I think you'll find that most ATM proponents have their own very firm ideas about how the universe works. So most of them are not necessarily going to take your word about it, because they think you're just as wrong as the mainstream, just in a different way.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

Einstein considered space/time as an Aether or 'medium' that could be curved or flat numerous times. In The rejection of the 'river' of MM experiments in relation to SR it was NEVER considered that that "River" could be traveling at "c", and be the 'Carrier' of the photons, and therefore give a negative result to a 'prefered' frame of reference! So why would Einstein ever have even mentioned Planck size 'particles' (was he even aware that these could exist?) as the possible make up of the 'Medium' of space/time?

Since they are collisionlees with themselves, they CANNOT CLUMP so they MUST remain collisionless everywhere, UNTIL 'something' makes them clump. SO, that is just flat space/time.

The speed of it does NOT matter when using it to explain the gravitational effects it has. You use it all the time, with the maths, when you use it to show how Non-Baryonic DM (Extra Gravity) is needed for the rotational curves of galaxies and for cluster dynamics!

Again, if they are collisionless, what is going to make them clump or curve?

This has, for the most part already been done. Just like Newtonian gravity can be used in many non-critical analysis of different dynamics, The Background Gravity Field, being everywhere and collisionless, will simply take the place of gravitational radiation, gravity making gravity, and so the BGF gravity will ne there to make the caculations even more robust in critical calcs. Again, because it is collisionless and "Everywhere", the speed doesn't matter...it is just that the gravity is there. The Speed being at "c" only matters in the validation of SR, and posibly some other areas not necessarily concerning gravity.

Yes definitely. As I have said in numerous places, "IF" the Big Bang is wrong, the Energy did NOT get here all at once, and shrinking the universe down to a point and everything thing that exists in the universe today must be expanding from that point, or the ever infamous everywhere at once, with a little Inflation thrown in for good measure, THEN that means that PARTS of different theories ARE correct. Just for example, Fred Hoyle was the smartest guy ever for coming up with the simple fact that Matter should be getting here a little at a time!!!!! WHY would I say that? Because I am a betting man, and the chances that the BB is right are about 99% against! For MANY reasons, but as I have also said numerous times, what are the odds that the VERY FIRST application of GR to the universe as a whole could be right? And now after 30 + years of trying to Unify GR and QFT, Define how SMBH's are created and how galaxies form, it is ever more obvious that 'something' is wrong, and MORE TIME will not fix it!
He could just never find how that was happening, BUT "IF" it didn't get here all at once, then it MUST get here a little at a time...'somehow'. Gee, I wonder how that might happen? BUT, being a Anti-BBer, what didn't he believe...NO singualrities/BH's/GR...The BIG BANG NAKED SINGULARITY has thrown everything OFF...BUT the concept is ight...just NOT for the whole universe at once!!! Shrinking the Universe down to a point is an Illegal lookback in GR, because that would have to mean that the whole universe was locked up inside that Naked Singularity, and although that is okay for how the baryonic Matter gets here (But not all at once for the whole universe, only a galaxy at a time), SPACE DOES NOT get here that way!

SO the ONLY way to Unify GR and QFT, is "IF" it is Unfied in the Planck regime, and the ONLY PLACE that we know that exists, is in the depths of the MBH's and the Planck Ring Singularities therein!

Then, the Einstein-Rosen Bridges have an actual and physical viability in showing how the speed of light became the Constant of SR and Motion in opur universe and how "SPACE" gets here in the very Voids where we actually see the expansion taking place.

It's really not that difficult to see once the puzzle pieces are fitted together properly.

So yes, Cahills Background gravity field is correct and showing how the baryonic Matter, the galaxy rotation curves can be accounted for with that as the DM, works perfectly well...BUT much of his other things are still wrong!

LIKE, because he doesn't know it is traveling at "c", he THINKS he is seeing a prefered reference frame and therefore thinks the MM experiments, plus numerous others show that...THEY DON"T. His Borehole stuff may or may not be showing us something about DM traveling THROUGH the earth, I'm not sure on that. Also, because he doesn't understand where the BGF is coming from, he doesn't understand about MBH's and has someof those things wrong when comparing different systems!

Yes, I understand this. And you also know that there is NO way that I can do this.

But, does that mean that I have NOT found a direct correlation between VERY High Energy Gamma Radiation and galaxy formation, and that I don't have anything VALID to say about how the Universe is working?

As for demanding the Maths, everytime a Professional presents a paper, I very rarely see the maths challenged! It is usually the Laws that are applied, the selection criteria, the line of reasoning used or the concluions drawn that are usually it issue. Just as with Cahills work, it won't be the maths that are challenged!

I don't know how many other ways I can describe to you to get you to understand that this is THE MOST DIFFICULT PROBLEM of all and will take many GR experts many Years to complete!

And this I am not sure what to think of. It seems you just made this up AS A PROBLEM. I don't think it even is one, as the numbers for the total number of galaxies is no longer an issue, since I am no longer even using a FLWR model at all. Back in it's infancy, my model was still using the FLWR accelerating universe, when I was saying that the accelerating expansion was "OUR" MBH's releasing 'space' into OUR universe for the acceleration. BUT, once I realized that there was a large discrepency/dilema (actually I knew it was there, In my Universe A, C, B paper, and just wanted to see if someone would catch it, and didn't have the correct answer yet), of having ONE MBH from the universe level above ours, releasing some space to us, and then OUR MBH's releasing more space for the acceleration.
BUT, once I had the realization that all the MBH's were actually releasing to us, and that they all were the VOIDS, that eliminated the FLWR altogether!

Besides, when I gave you the answer for the many more galaxies seen nearby, you simply brushed that off, saying that was just because of better instrumentation, which is partially true, BUT doesn't change the answer or make it any less meaningful.

Yes, just like what I said about Fred and Company! NO, Singularities/Black Holes/GR.

It's not a question of whether he would have had any reason to do so. It's a question of whether the math of general relativity, unaltered, describes such a thing. And it does not. One might be able to modify the math so that it does so, but without such a modification, such particles aren't part of the theory. Or, to say it another way, the theory of general relativity does not require us to assume that spacetime is made of some type of particles travelling at lightspeed. If there is no need to change general relativity, then there is no need to assume the existence of such particles.

Nope. Even collisionless particles will tend to group together even if they interact only through gravity. Well, unless they are perfectly homogeneous. But with you having them come in through voids of varying sizes, there's no way they could be homogeneous.

Then let me say it without reference to speed. General relativity does not describe spacetime as being made of particles at all.

As noted above, unless there are no inhomogeneities at all, even collisionless particles will tend to group together. They just won't collapse in the same way particles that can radiate energy way will. Instead, they'll tend to form more or less spherical clouds with a density that goes like the inverse square of the radius. Interestingly, that's exactly the kind of density profile that you'd need to get a roughly constant orbital velocity. And of course, particles will curve under the influence of gravity whether they interact in other ways or not. You've proposed hypothetical particles that have mass but don't interact gravitationally, but there's no provision in general relativity or any other existing theory for something that behaves like that. As far as we can tell, everything that has mass or energy interacts gravitationally. In fact, the equivalence principle of general relativity is essentially equivalent to postulating that gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same thing. Far from leaving general relativity unaffected, proposing that particles can have mass and/or energy and still not interact gravitationally contradicts one of its foundations.

That's really not enough. It's possible that you have a theory that makes all the same predictions as general relativity, but even then, to take your theory seriously, we'd want to know how it does that. For example, you say there's no such thing as gravitational radiation. But instead, the Background Gravity Field does something that appears exactly like gravitational radiation. What's the mechanism (with the mathematics along with a verbal description) that these particles undergo to do that? If you just say that your theory ends up looking just like general relativity, except for some conceptual mechanism, why would we prefer it to general relativity? If instead, there are differences, you'd need to detail exactly what those differences are.

As I've pointed out before, it wasn't the first, but even if it had been, scientific theories are not accepted or rejected based on a subjective judgment of how likely the first theory in some matter is to be correct. Rather, they are judged based on how well they fit the evidence.

Again, though, you're simply making a whole series of claims without providing any concrete, quantitative evidence that these ideas fit with our observations. I've brought up several serious problems with your idea, but you don't seem willing or able to address them.

So, as far as you're concerned Cahill has some things right, but other things wrong. So presenting his paper won't suffice as a providing the mathematical basis for your own theory. Let's go through the possibilities:

Cahill's idea could in fact be completely wrong and not work at all. Using his idea's as a basis for yours certainly doesn't work in that case.

Cahill's idea could provide results indistinguishable from yours. In that case, we don't need your idea, because we can use his, and he's given us more detail to work with.

Cahill's idea may have some overlap with yours, but your idea may differ in some ways, or add some elements. But in that case, you'd need to provide the quantitative, mathematical differences between your idea and his.

In none of these three cases will simply presenting Cahill's paper actually provide support for your idea. If he doesn't understand where massive black holes come from and gets some things wrong because of that, what things does he get wrong? How are they wrong? What would the right answer be? How would that affect his calculations for galactic rotation curves? Quantitatively, of course.

What it means is that you don't actually know whether your idea would really work or not, because you haven't worked out any of the details.

You can be quite sure that the math was checked as part of a peer review process for any published paper. If it's not right, it would be sent back for the author to fix before accepting it. Although peer review can be a frustrating process, it's a useful step because it makes sure that there aren't any obvious errors with the paper.

And may not have any solution at all! Let me try to give an analogy. Suppose I present you with an equation:

x⁴ - 5x³ + 7x² - 2x + 8 = 0

Now I ask you whether there are any real solutions to that equation. You tell me, confidently, yes, there must be. But when I ask you about it further, you don't know what those solutions are, and it turns out you aren't even sure how to go about finding the solutions if there are any. So, why should I take your word that there are in fact real solutions to the equation?

Suppose I were a cosmologist, and you came to me with an idea that has, after a short review, what looks like several serious problems with no clear solutions. Your response when I bring this up is to assure me that if I and my colleagues all dropped what we were doing and instead worked on finding a solution, that we'll come up with one, but you aren't able to work one out yourself. So why should I take your word for that? That's not how science works. You want to convince me that a problem has a solution? Show me one!

We've covered this before, but, once again, I'll provide more detail. It was actually a comment you made that made me realize the problem. You'd commented about galaxies that existed but were far enough away that the light from them hadn't reached us yet. From that I realized that if galaxies appear here one at a time, more or less randomly distributed through space (obviously most of them appear in cluster or groups rather than voids, but evenly distributed overall, since the universe appears isotropic at the largest scales), then we should see more galaxies closer to us and fewer farther away, because the galaxies themselves should be distributed throughout space, but many of the distant ones would not yet be visible.

I did not "brush it off", I explained why that wasn't a sufficient answer. Any survey of galaxies or other distant objects has to take into account, and correct for, selection bias. That is, we know that we see more galaxies closer to us because if we look far enough away, the dimmest galaxies are no longer visible. We can correct for that by a variety of methods (if you're looking at galaxy density, for example, you could choose a cutoff of some absolute magnitude so that you don't artificially inflate the count of nearby ones). A classic example of selection bias would be to conclude that all the most distant galaxies are brighter on average, rather than realizing that you just weren't remembering that dimmer galaxies aren't included in your distant samples because you couldn't see them. Several people have asked whether your comparisons of the frequency of various types of gamma ray bursts and galaxies includes corrections for this type of selection bias, but I don't see anyplace that you've addressed that question.

So, the issue is that, no matter what kind of model we have, we know that we'll see fewer galaxies farther away beacuse they won't be bright enoguh to see. Your idea predicts that we will see that number drop off even faster, because in addition to that effect, there will be many that would have been bright enough to see, but that were formed recently enough that their light has not yet reached us. We do not see any such effect. This one at least I can see some potential solutions for (variations in galactic formation rates over time or something), but you'd need to actually figure out one, make sure that it works, provide an explanation, and check to make sure that any other effects that it might have work out, and that it all matches observation.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

And as I have repeated several times now, this is just curved and non-curved (Flat) spacetime, so no changes are necessary.

Ah, now we are thinking! Yes, there is an Inflow from each of the Voids, and yes there is a "Turbulance", BUT all that is making up 'space' is collisionless with each other, and traveling at "c", and just for now, let's say that there have been NO MBH's made yet, anywhere. What would this Non-Baryonic collisionless Planck size Dark Matter be doing? And how could it clump...anywhere? How could any part of it anywhere even spin? How could any part of it begin rotating? Assuming for now, that no two Voids space have met yet!!!

So, are you telling me that they are 'accounting' for the 'energy'/possible mass of all the Neutrino Sea that exists in our solar system/galaxy/universe when they are doing their gravity calculations...I don't think so. They are being completely ignored when it comes to gravity.

The same sort of thing with DM for galaxies and clusters. They are saying nothing of its 'motions', speed (accept to erroneously call it CDM because they think it MUST be slow VS "HOT" DM, which are Neutrinos and so are considered 'fast'), they are just calculating it as "THERE".

Sure it would, if you weren't so busy trying to show ways that it wouldn't. I explained enough so you could see how he is using the BGF JUST LIKE DM, which is just the gravity 'being there' to account for the rotation curves!
All the rest is irrelevent for this part.

Yes, it certainly does predict that there are many galaxies that have been birthed that are Dark Matter galaxies as well as the whole range of galaxy morphology from BCD's to LSB's, but that does NOT mean there would be any drop off rate as you are suggesting. If their light hasn't even reached us yet, what is dropping off? And there is certainly not any kind of study done that could even detect the effect you are talking about. Heck, one of the arguements in the Arp thread is...do galaxies even have a morphology. In addition to that they don't even know that many BCD's are really spiral galaxies in their infancy and have categorized them as Dwarf Galaxies!

And I meant to respond to this again (this is part of what I lost that night), Post 39.

I read both these at leangth and although I do not recall as much now as I did that night, both these papers are sadly in difficult territory because all the conjectures on what is happening is so off the mark and how they got there and what will be happening is unknown. As to their existance though, this is directly from my first paper.
Now those numbers are definitely off, because this is not differentiating from the 3 second to 500 second GRB's VS all the GRB's!

But both of those papers and others that some Baut members have presented, are using the different Kennicut type "LAWS" of star formation to say that these galaxies shouldn't even form stars, of course because if they have been around for 10+ billion years and haven't formed stars yet, why whould they start now!!!

Which leads straight to the other "Really Robust Restraint" that large and fully developed galaxies in the 'early' universe MUST have had extremely FAST star formation histories!

These are all just 'Restraints" that are made to fit the current paradigm and then called "Observations".

[QUOTE=Grey]
Suppose I were a cosmologist, and you came to me with an idea that has, after a short review, what looks like several serious problems with no clear solutions. Your response when I bring this up is to assure me that if I and my colleagues all dropped what we were doing and instead worked on finding a solution, that we'll come up with one, but you aren't able to work one out yourself. So why should I take your word for that?

Because face to face there would not be all this nitpicking and automatic naysaying, and because you agreed to be open minded I would be able to keep the conversation 'focused' on the BIG PICTURE and by the time we were done with the conversation (1 to 2 hours and hopefully longer, like years) you would be able to 'see' the universe I do and truely see how the Maths of SR/GR/String/M" Theory can SHOW a "PHYSICAL" universe including spacetime/MBH's/And Singularities, Naked and the ones in the depths of MBH's where the ONLY Planck regime in the universe exists that can be shown to be where the Ring Singularity is how GR and QFT can and will be UNIFIED!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

You've stated it, but you have not demonstrated how a sea of particles duplicates the behavior of spacetime in general relativity. But even if you did so, if it behaves no differently than spacetime as described without such particles, why is there a need for us to try to describe it with particles? And what would be the evidence that it is composed of such particles, since there would be no experimental test that could differentiate the two?

As long as they interact gravitationally (and if general relativity is correct at all, any particles with mass and/or energy do indeed interact via gravity), then they will indeed "clump"; just not as tightly as matter which can also interact in other ways would. I explained that in more detail later in my message.

Whether you think so or not, it's true. Neutrinos with mass are included in many simulations and calculations of structure formation in the universe. As for whether it would affect calculations in our solar system, it's easy to work out constraints on the typical density and show that, for localized concentrations of baryonic mass like our solar system, the contributions from neutrinos or any form of dark matter would have to be very small.

I don't understand what you're saying here. You seem to be saying that not including neutrinos in calculations is the same as including dark matter in calculations, and both are equally neglectful. Could you be more clear, please?

You haven't explained any quantitative differences that your idea has from his, you've just told me that you think he's wrong in several places. You have not gone on to show what would be right in those cases. Why shouldn't people spend their time looking at his ideas instead of yours?

Besides, the entire point of conversations here in the ATM section are pretty much for other members of the board to poke holes in your idea. That's not out of malice or anything. It's because if you can't even answer our criticisms, you won't get very far with your idea. If, when someone asks you to show the details of how your idea works, you instead present the details of how someone else's idea works, you don't really have a serious theory.

Like I did with the angular momentum issue, let me give you a more concrete example that will hopefully help you see what I'm talking about. The numbers are a bit artificial, but it works out the same if I do something more complex, and I don't want to take more space than I already am. Suppose that about 100 million years ago, five galaxies were formed in a particular direction of sky (more precisely, we'd need to make sure that we were comparing equivalent volumes of space at varying distances). Since they'd be expected to be randomly distributed, let's make it easy and say that one is at 20 million light years (call it 1a), one at 40 million light years (1b), one at 60 million light years (1c), one at 80 million light years (1d), and one at 100 million light years (1e). Now, 100 million years later, we'll be able to see all of these. Now, about 80 million years ago, if five more galaxies were created at these same evenly distributed distances, (call them 2a through 2e), we'll be able to see 2a through 2d now, but we won't be able to see 2e for another 20 million years. Let's assume that production of galaxies continues in this even manner. So 60 million years ago, we'll have five more (and we'll be able to see 3a through 3c, but not 3d or 3e), 40 million years ago we'll have five more (we'll see 4a and 4b only), and 20 million years ago, five more will be created, but for now we'll only see 5a, since the light from 5b through 5e won't have reached us yet. So what do we see? About 20 million light years away, we see five galaxies (1a, 2a, 3a, 4a, and 5a). At 40 million light years, we see four galaxies (1b, 2b, 3b, and 4b). At 60 million light years, we'll only see three (1c, 2c, and 3c). At 80 million light years, we only see two (1d and 2d), and at 100 million light years only one (1e). The number of visible galaxies per unit volume drops linearly with distance!

Now, if we were to introduce some randomization to this process, rather than this artificially equal distribution, and distribute galactic creation across the whole visible universe, it wouldn't be quite this easy to describe, but the result is the same: we should see a much higher density of galaxies near to us than we see far away. And that's directly contradicted by observation.

I hope you aren't serious here. This would be an extremely obvious effect, and would show up without even looking for it on any survey. Take a look at SDSS, which currently provides a three dimensional map for about 675,000 galaxies.

Here again is an answer that won't win you any support. Rather than addressing the issue quantitatively, and finding a way that your idea could match the observed density of galaxies, you give a few vague suggestions of why the data that contradicts you mgith be flawed. If you think there's a serious problem with the SDSS data (and all the data from other galactic surveys), you'd actually have to show what the problem is.

To my knowledge, both of these papers predate not only the discovery of Virgo HI21, but your own discussions here as well. The point is, you tried to paint this object as something that completely perplexed mainstream astronomers and caused serious problems for a CDM model of galaxy formation. But instead, if you had actually looked at the work being done, you would have realized that not only does such an object not cause problems with the CDM model, it was predicted several years before it was observed.

Yes, actually there would be just as much "nitpicking". It would be polite in most cases, but no scientist is going to accept your idea because you're a nice guy, or because the "BIG PICTURE" seems good. Theories are evaluated by looking at how they compare to the evidence, and yes, that means in detail. You say it would become obvious how the math of relativity and string theory could make your idea work, but that hasn't happened yet. I know that's because you think everyone here is just too blinded by preconceptions. Remember, though, that many of the people on the board have at least asomewhat better understanding of the mathematics that you acknowledge is over your head. When I say that one of the ground-level postulates of general relativity is that all matter and energy interact gravitationally, and that it would completely change the theory to change that postulate, you just tell me I'm wrong, that it's really only a problem in some "big bang-tainted version" of general relativity, and that general relativity doesn't actually need to be modified at all. But if you'd study the theory at all seriously, you'd see that it really is true. If you don't understand how the math of relativity or string theory could work with your idea (and we know that you don't, because when asked for an explanation, you say that it would take years of work by general relativity experts to work it out), how can you be sure it does work, and why would you expect anyone else to see how it works? The amount of "nitpicking" (or, rather, requests for quantitative detail showing how an idea quantitatively matches observations) is greater in the scientific community than here on this forum.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

Grey;

I really do appreciate the time that you have taken to go over all of this with me!

I also wish that I had the financial freedom to continue this 24/7 as it has truely become a passion, but alas I have already neglected that aspect for far too long and am now in dire straights and MUST repair that situation and concentrate (which has become very difficult when responding/reading/THINKING ALOT daily) on my 'commission only' Recruiting for Insurance Brokerages.

I will however still respond (Mostly on weekends) and read intermitently.

Here are a few points I would like to respond to.

http://www.davis-inc.com/relativity/


One of the most fascinating predictions of relativity theory is that massive objects in vehement motion emit a new kind of radiation, known as gravitational radiation. This phenomenon is also described as a wave motion, as ripples in the curvature of space-time, and we speak of "gravitational waves."

Notice the Bold..."NEW"!

When Einstein first came out with SR (1905) and GR (1915) it was for a Static Universe! Therefore until 1929 and the advent of the LeMaitre/Friedmann "Shrink the Universe to a point"/Naked Singularity....The Universe DID NOT start with ENERGY DENSITY!!!

Anything that starts from the position/concept for "SPACE" of ENERGY FIRST is Big Bang!

This is precisely why QM with its quantum "Foam" for 'space' is soooooo problematic!

I am strongly suggesting that mainstream does NOT know how to seperate out, the orginal GR and SR from the ENERGY FIRST/BB postulate, and why there is a great deal of confusion on sooo many issues.

Of course all of this goes to the very old and same question...what is 'space' made of???

And now that we/mainstream is/are looking for Planck size Non-Baryonic DM and Anti-BBer's are saying it doesn't exist, once again, the 'fight' has become about the wrong things, just like it was in the QSSC VS BB (Static or Dynamic universe).

In the "Missing Universe" it clearly depicted the difference being between the existence or Non-existence of Non-Baryonic DM, and so when it is found to exist the BB will claim victory once again, but it will STILL NOT be right.

So, the point is...that Yes, GR and DM are correct, BUT, the only way to Unify GR and QM is in the Planck Regime, and THE ONLY way to the Planck regime is IN and THROUGH the MBH's!!!

Now, since all of you agree that my model violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and that the world lines from the ring singularities in the depths of the MBH's cannot be brought up out of the MBH's to FIND the progenitor, the Naked Singularities that create Galaxies, and that NOTHING can go THROUGH the MBH's and therefore come to our universe through the Einstein-Rosen Bridges, to become the 'elementary base elements', that is the Aether of 'space', that is traveling at "c", then me showing that the Maths would work for this, especially considering that I would be showing that a galaxy was NOT "Spun Up", BUT that it is actually 'space' traveling at "c", that is being "slowed down" and Torqued into its rotation, would be fought tooth and nail!

In Nereids thread, Planck regime - GR and QM incompatibility?, You, Ken G, Tensor, Spaceman Spiff, and Nereid are "LOOKING" for reality in science, and Ken G especially is having a hard time finding a way to consider any cosmology to be a concept of reality. Well, in the Earth sciences and especially in medical sciences, there better be a WHOLE lot of reality, and so it should be as well with the space sciences, ONCE we are on the right track. SO, as far as I can see, the main reason that there is VERY little reality in the current paradigm is because soooo much of it is beginning from the ENERGY FIRST dogma and 'space' is NOT made up of EM energy!

SO, the bottom line is, I do not know how science is going to come to terms with dealing with the 'below the event horizon of a MBH' dilema. I would say, as Tim Thompson illuded to, that the 'reality' will be found in the self-consistency of Theory, and that the very fact that the speed of light goes to "c" at the event horizon of black holes, and that therefore, Planck size DM coming from the Einstein-Rosen Bridges, and being the "Carrier" of light, "SETS" the speed limit for the universe and that the Membranes touching, causing a GRB, making the galaxies, "SETS" the rotation of everything in the Universe, is wayyyyyyyyyyyy more profound than anyone is realizing!!!

So, you and others can poo-poo, and naysay, and demand the maths all you want, but this model, is as similar to the BB paradigm as you will find (Naked Singularity causing nucleosynthesis that is actually real because we can really detect it), BUT it is the ONLY way to make 'space' REAL and physical.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

This is very long so I have to make 2 posts out of it, but this is from Einstein in 1920, and I believe will give a slightly different view.

Ether and the Theory of Relativity

Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.

The original version is available in the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein

HOW does it come about that alongside of the idea of ponderable matter, which is derived by abstraction from everyday life, the physicists set the idea of the existence of another kind of matter, the ether? The explanation is probably to be sought in those phenomena which have given rise to the theory of action at a distance, and in the properties of light which have led to the undulatory theory. Let us devote a little while to the consideration of these two subjects.

Outside of physics we know nothing of action at a distance. When we try to connect cause and effect in the experiences which natural objects afford us, it seems at first as if there were no other mutual actions than those of immediate contact, e.g. the communication of motion by impact, push and pull, heating or inducing combustion by means of a flame, etc. It is true that even in everyday experience weight, which is in a sense action at a distance, plays a very important part. But since in daily experience the weight of bodies meets us as something constant, something not linked to any cause which is variable in time or place, we do not in everyday life speculate as to the cause of gravity, and therefore do not become conscious of its character as action at a distance. It was Newton's theory of gravitation that first assigned a cause for gravity by interpreting it as action at a distance, proceeding from masses. Newton's theory is probably the greatest stride ever made in the effort towards the causal nexus of natural phenomena. And yet this theory evoked a lively sense of discomfort among Newton's contemporaries, because it seemed to be in conflict with the principle springing from the rest of experience, that there can be reciprocal action only through contact, and not through immediate action at a distance.

It is only with reluctance that man's desire for knowledge endures a dualism of thls kind. How was unity to be preserved in his comprehension of the forces of nature? Either by trying to look upon contact forces as being themselves distant forces which admittedly are observable only at a very small distance and this was the road which Newton's followers, who were entirely under the spell of his doctrine, mostly preferred to take; or by assuming that the Newtonian action at a distance is only apparently immediate action at a distance, but in truth is conveyed by a medium permeating space, whether by movements or by elastic deformation of this medium. Thus the endeavour toward a unified view of the nature of forces leads to the hypothesis of an ether. This hypothesis, to be sure, did not at first bring with it any advance in the theory of gravitation or in physics generally, so that it became customary to treat Newton's law of force as an axiom not further reducible. But the ether hypothesis was bound always to play some part in physical science, even if at first only a latent part.

When in the first half of the nineteenth century the far-reaching similarity was revealed which subsists between the properties of light and those of elastic waves in ponderable bodies, the ether hypothesis found fresh support. 1t appeared beyond question that light must be interpreted as a vibratory process in an elastic, inert medium filling up universal space. It also seemed to be a necessary consequence of the fact that light is capable of polarisation that this medium, the ether, must be of the nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a fluid, but only in a solid. Thus the physicists were bound to arrive at the theory of the ``quas-irigid'' luminiferous ether, the parts of which can carry out no movements relatively to one another except the small movements of deformation which correspond to light-waves.

This theory also called the theory of the stationary luminiferous ether moreover found a strong support in an experiment which is also of fundamental importance in the special theory of relativity, the experiment of Fizeau, from which one was obliged to infer that the luminiferous ether does not take part in the movements of bodies. The phenomenon of aberration also favoured the theory of the quasi-rigid ether.

The development of the theory of electricity along the path opened up by Maxwell and Lorentz gave the development of our ideas concerning the ether quite a peculiar and unexpected turn. For Maxwell himself the ether indeed still had properties which were purely mechanical, although of a much more complicated kind than the mechanical properties of tangible solid bodies. But neither Maxwell nor his followers succeeded in elaborating a mechanical model for the ether which might furnish a satisfactory mechanical interpretation of Maxwell's laws of the electro-magnetic field. The laws were clear and simple, the mechanical interpretations clumsy and contradictory. Almost imperceptibly the theoretical physicists adapted themselves to a situation which, from the standpoint of their mechanical programme, was very depressing. They were particularly influenced by the electro-dynamical investigations of Heinrich Hertz. For whereas they previously had required of a conclusive theory that it should content itself with the fundamental concepts which belong exclusively to mechanics (e.g. densities, velocities, deformations, stresses) they gradually accustomed themselves to admitting electric and magnetic force as fundamental concepts side by side with those of mechanics, without requiring a mechanical interpretation for them. Thus the purely mechanical view of nature was gradually abandoned. But this change led to a fundamental dualism which in the long-run was insupportable. A way of escape was now sought in the reverse direction, by reducing the principles of mechanics to those of electricity, and this especially as confidence in the strict validity of the equations of Newton's mechanics was shaken by the experiments with b-rays and rapid kathode rays.

This dualism still confronts us in unextenuated form in the theory of Hertz, where matter appears not only as the bearer of velocities, kinetic energy, and mechanical pressures, but also as the bearer of electromagnetic fields. Since such fields also occur in vacuo i.e. in free ether the ether also appears as bearer of electromagnetic fields. The ether appears indistinguishable in its functions from ordinary matter. Within matter it takes part in the motion of matter and in empty space it has everywhere a velocity; so that the ether has a definitely assigned velocity throughout the whole of space. There is no fundamental difference between Hertz's ether and ponderable matter (which in part subsists in the ether).

The Hertz theory suffered not only from the defect of ascribing to matter and ether, on the one hand mechanical states, and on the other hand electrical states, which do not stand in any conceivable relation to each other; it was also at variance with the result of Fizeau's important experiment on the velocity of the propagation of light in moving fluids, and with other established experimental results.

Such was the state of things when H. A. Lorentz entered upon the scene. He brought theory into harmony with experience by means of a wonderful simplification of theoretical principles. He achieved this, the most important advance in the theory of electricity since Maxwell, by taking from ether its mechanical, and from matter its electromagnetic qualities. As in empty space, so too in the interior of material bodies, the ether, and not matter viewed atomistically, was exclusively the seat of electromagnetic fields. According to Lorentz the elementary particles of matter alone are capable of carrying out movements; their electromagnetic activity is entirely confined to the carrying of electric charges. Thus Lorentz succeeded in reducing all electromagnetic happenings to Maxwell's equations for free space.

As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said of it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H. A. Lorentz. 1t may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility. How this is to be understood will forthwith be expounded.

The space-time theory and the kinematics of the special theory of relativity were modelled on the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of the electromagnetic field. This theory therefore satisfies the conditions of the special theory of relativity, but when viewed from the latter it acquires a novel aspect. For if K be a system of co-ordinates relatively to which the Lorentzian ether is at rest, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations are valid primarily with reference to K. But by the special theory of relativity the same equations without any change of meaning also hold in relation to any new system of co-ordinates K' which is moving in uniform translation relatively to K. Now comes the anxious question: Why must I in the theory distinguish the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless inacceptable.

The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, and are not bound down to any bearer, but they are independent realities which are not reducible to anything else, exactly like the atoms of ponderable matter. This conception suggests itself the more readily as, according to Lorentz's theory, electromagnetic radiation, like ponderable matter, brings impulse and energy with it, and as, according to the special theory of relativity, both matter and radiation are but special forms of distributed energy, ponderable mass losing its isolation and appearing as a special form of energy.

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.

Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else with the help of small floats, for instance we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics if, in fact, nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of inovable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.

We have something like this in the electromagnetic field. For we may picture the field to ourselves as consisting of lines of force. If we wish to interpret these lines of force to ourselves as something inaterial in the ordinary sense, we are tempted to interpret the dynamic processes as motions of these lines of force, such that each separate line of force is tracked through the course of time. It is well known, however, that this way of regarding the electromagnetic field leads to contradictions.

Generalising we must say this: There inay be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time. In Minkowski's idiom this is expressed as follows: Not every extended conformation in the four-dimensional world can be regarded as composed of worldthreads. The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

continued...

Certainly, from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity, the ether hypothesis appears at first to be an empty hypothesis. 1n the equations of the electromagnetic field there occur, in addition to the densities of the electric charge, only the intensities of the field. The career of electromagnetic processes in vacuo appears to be completely determined by tliese equations, uninfluenced by other physical quantities. The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this medium.

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, inust be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.

It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something which is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in inechanics a mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space. But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once inore, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the ether to which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.

Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that ``empty space'' in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.

What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations,; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation.

As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear. We know that it determines the metrical relations in the space-time continuum, e.g. the configurative possibilities of solid bodies as well as the gravitational fields; but we do not know whether it has an essential share in the structure of the electrical elementary particles constituting matter. Nor do we know whether it is only in the proximity of ponderable masses that its structure differs essentially from that of the Lorentzian ether; whether the geometry of spaces of cosmic extent is approximately Euclidean. But we can assert by reason of the relativistic equations of gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean relations, with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. In this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and of finite magnitude, its inagnitude being determined by the value of that inean density.

If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from the standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between the two. There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. From the present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new formal motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed the gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for example, with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the electromagnetic type.

Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnctic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or as they might also be called space and matter.

Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation. An exceedingly ingenious attempt in this direction has been made by the mathematician H. Weyl,; but I do not believe that his theory will hold its ground in relation to reality. Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass.

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only wonld be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable inedia, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. End of Quote"""


I believe here, that he is basically saying that it is possible that 'space' is an Aether that is made up of an elementary particle. It is just that NO ONE has ever figured out, that this is true and that it is TRAVELING AT "c"!!!! ALL OF SPACE!!!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

No trouble. I spend time here on the BAUT forum because I find the conversation enjoyable. I also hope that people might learn things in the process.

No worries. Obviously there are many things that take precedence. I was largely unavailable over the holidays myself. The beauty of a conversation on an online forum is that it can take place over an extended period of time, with all participants contributing when their own schedules permit.

Yes, new in the sense that, prior to the development of general relativity, there was not an expectation that there would be gravitational waves. That still predates the big bang model by about a decade.

Yes, prior to Hubble's famous observation, the prevalent view was that the universe had remained largely the same over time, and mainstream astronomers did not think that the universe had started with a high energy density and then expanded and cooled. No problems with that statement.

You've stated this explicitly many times, not just "suggested" it. However, you frequently go on to say that many elements of general relativity actually arise not from relativity itself, but from the big bang model using general relativity. You've included in this category things like gravitational waves and the fact that gravitational potential energy itself produces gravity. But I'm afraid you're just wrong in this belief, and if you understood general relativity better, you'd see that. Not only have you failed to support these claims, other than by asserting them repeatedly, they are flatly contradicted by the evidence. It takes nothing more than looking at the mathematics of general relativity, as first introduced, to see that there's a self-coupling term. As for gravitational radiation, that also arises directly from the theory, and Einstein even wrote a specific paper to discuss the details of it ("Über Gravitationswellen", or "On Gravitational Waves" translated) in 1918. If gravitational waves only arise from a "big bang version" of general relativity, why did Einstein write about them in detail a decade before any kind of expanding universe model was suggested?

It's actually very easy to separate general relativity from a big bang model. In particular, you can look at the original papers and the mathematics involved, and then also look at the works that came after the big bang model was developed, and see that the math of general relativity remains the same. Yes, our current view of the big bang model depends on general relativity, but the latter does not in any way depend on the former.

Actually, I don't particularly care about this. For your idea to work, I haven't particularly addressed any of the concerns about how your model would change how general relativity handles black holes. There are enough problems with your idea that are simpler to address that we can come back to this if you ever deal with the simpler problems.

Not at all! I've requested many times that you show the math that would demonstrate how a galaxy of matter originating by expanding from a central point could end up rotating. Feel free to show that math any time you wish!

I think you're misreading that thread. In particular, I don't think that Ken G would ascribe any more "reality" to scientific results in medicine than to cosmology. He'd say that those results are more useful, of course, but he's been careful to try to draw a line between "usefulness" and "reality". And I don't think Ken G would claim that he's looking for any reality in science. In fact, he often says that the point of science is specifically to "replace" reality with something that we can understand.

You (and I think other ATM proponents) seem to think that "poo-pooing" or "naysaying" is something reserved for your non-mainstream ideas, but I think that you misunderstand something. This process of looking at an idea and trying hard to find all the problems with it and the reasons that it won't work is exactly what science is all about. The ideas that are now mainstream are so because they survived this process. As it stands, your idea has some serious problems that I've raised. One is a theoretical problem, that it seems to violate the conservation of angular momentum. To resolve that, you'd need to either come up with a source of angular momentum for a new galaxy that could (quantitatively!) fit with observations, or you'd have to develop a new theory of mechanics that allows nonconservation of angular momentum. Another issue is purely observational, that your idea predicts a variation in galactic density that we do not see. Here you'd have to either show why the observations are wrong, or you'd have to modify your idea so that it fits (quantitatively!) with the observations. If it's not possible to do that, then your idea simply cannot be the way the universe works, no matter how much you may like it, because it makes predictions that contradict what we observe.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.