I have explained in my pre-print THEORY OF UNIVERSALITY the concept of Dark Matter being the matter resulting out of the energy outpouring of the stars. Moreover, the absolute speeds of Dark Matter and Black hole are less than speed of light. It is also derived that the various star and planetary systems are having absolute speeds greater than that of light as observed by an observer placed outside the universe imaginably. Please, refer the pre-print THEORY OF UNIVERSALITY .
DOI : http://doi.one/10.1712/ijsdr.17561
The age of Sun was calculated to be 4.4491 billion years ( came close to observed value of 4.5 billion years ) by taking that Sun was a small bubble-like particle jetting out of the black hole at speeds billions of times greater than the speed of light.
I skimmed your pre-print. You've got some wild stuff in there; entertainingly detached from reality! Let's look at some examples...
From numerology's forced-matching of unrelated value coincidences -
"In the Solar System, the ratio of the mass of Sun to the mass of Saturn is nearly same as the ratio of the mass of one neutron plus one proton to the mass of an electron. We can predict that the Solar System follows Deuterium atomic model with the Sun as the nucleus and Saturn as the electron. Moreover, we can also predict that Saturn is the only planet which has come out of Sun and all other planets of the Solar System are like sub-atomic particles of the Deuterium atomic model".
- to the "everything you thought you knew, was backwards" type of model inversion -
"the force of Sun on Earth is nearly 20,000 billion times less than the force of Earth on the Sun...the Sun’s hold on the planets is feeble; compared to the planets’ force on the Sun".
- to the making of "predictions" without any awareness that data already exists which completely violates them -
" The plane of the planetary orbits around the sun is inclined in the direction of movement of the solar system in Milky way galaxy"
[fact check: the Solar System adheres to an orbit which wobbles just above and below the plane of the Milky Way disk; and the planes of the Solar System and Milky Way disk are actually inclined by 63 degrees to each other!
- to the casual dismissal of inconvenient differences between actual values and derived ones -
"we get G = 5.871 X 10 -11 which agrees with the experimental value of 6.673 X 10 -11".
- and of course, there is no attempt to reconcile these differences by any sort of quantitative error analysis.
Finally, whatever about the scientific concepts, it is inconceivable to me that a peer-reviewed journal, as this "International Journal of Scientific Development and Research (IJSDR)" claims to be, would publish a paper which does not even state the units on most of the values therein; which does not credit image sources or caption them properly; and which thinks that citing merely 4 textbooks and 1 data handbook is a sufficient appraisal of existing knowledge before attempting to overturn everything.
I skimmed your pre-print. You've got some wild stuff in there; entertainingly detached from reality! Let's look at some examples...
From numerology's forced-matching of unrelated value coincidences -
"In the Solar System, the ratio of the mass of Sun to the mass of Saturn is nearly same as the ratio of the mass of one neutron plus one proton to the mass of an electron. We can predict that the Solar System follows Deuterium atomic model with the Sun as the nucleus and Saturn as the electron. Moreover, we can also predict that Saturn is the only planet which has come out of Sun and all other planets of the Solar System are like sub-atomic particles of the Deuterium atomic model".
- to the "everything you thought you knew, was backwards" type of model inversion -
"the force of Sun on Earth is nearly 20,000 billion times less than the force of Earth on the Sun...the Sun’s hold on the planets is feeble; compared to the planets’ force on the Sun".
- to the making of "predictions" without any awareness that data already exists which completely violates them -
" The plane of the planetary orbits around the sun is inclined in the direction of movement of the solar system in Milky way galaxy"
[fact check: the Solar System adheres to an orbit which wobbles just above and below the plane of the Milky Way disk; and the planes of the Solar System and Milky Way disk are actually inclined by 63 degrees to each other!
- to the casual dismissal of inconvenient differences between actual values and derived ones -
"we get G = 5.871 X 10 -11 which agrees with the experimental value of 6.673 X 10 -11".
- and of course, there is no attempt to reconcile these differences by any sort of quantitative error analysis.
Finally, whatever about the scientific concepts, it is inconceivable to me that a peer-reviewed journal, as this "International Journal of Scientific Development and Research (IJSDR)" claims to be, would publish a paper which does not even state the units on most of the values therein; which does not credit image sources or caption them properly; and which thinks that citing merely 4 textbooks and 1 data handbook is a sufficient appraisal of existing knowledge before attempting to overturn everything.
Please, do not allow the bias of a few disagreements to color the opinion about the entire pre-print. I hope you have gone through the merits of the entire pre-print. And I am sure you have plenty of points of agreement and appreciation too. I have repeatedly mentioned that MKS units are taken everywhere in the paper.
Kasibhatla,
Let's take a very small part of your work. You claim an equation for the number of molecules at the 'outermost layer' of the Sun.
You present an equation that appears to be the ratio of the areas of two spherical shells.
4.pi.R_sun^2 / 4.pi.r^2 (with R_Sun as the photosphere's radius and r as the mean free path of hydrogen in the photosphere)
Please walk me through this derivation.
Surely you meant:
(4.pi.R_sun^2. some_thickness )/ the spherical *volume* determined by the collision of molecules?
So, if the mean free path is l, the spherical 'volume' per hydrogen molecule is 4/3.pi.l^3
And then you still have to justify your choice of the surficial 'thickness'.
I'm with Ray on this.
James,
For a more accurate derivation , volume should be considered , as you say . But, the approximation with area is sufficient. Here, I am trying to show the concept that universal force is manifesting as gravity. Hence, it is OK. Only, the concept is important . Not the exact derivation. If you do the exact mathematics, then you will get the exact value of G.
Dear all,
The deduction of Dark Matter is caused by the wrong idea that Kepler's laws would be valid in disc galaxies. In reality however, Kepler is only valid for one large central mass and a tiny orbiting one.
As LeVerrier has proven for our 8 planets, an additional planet will alter that orbit by a precession due to their gravity. For each added planet, all the orbits of the other planets will be altered! This results in Mercury's Newtonian part of its perihelion precession.
However, in disc galaxies, there are many millions of stars that alter each-other's orbits many million times, resulting in orbit speeds that became totally different from Kepler's.
The only way to do it right is to integrate a plausible mass distribution according to Newton's rules of integration, and to calculate the gravity upon a given orbit.
The consequence of that calculus is that the velocity curves of disc galaxies become indeed very flat outside the bulge, as observed.
This is also the reason why no need for Dark Matter was found in the DF2 galaxy cluster. In the case of DF2, the small number of globular clusters in the galaxy are more comparable to our planetary system, which indeed doesn't need any presence of Dark Matter, because the mutual influence of the few cluster's orbits is very limited.
However, the mainstream theory advances that disc galaxies are not stable with stars alone, and that the need of Dark Matter is in any case legitimate, even if the velocity curves are solved. They conclude this because computer simulations result to that.
In order to solve this issue, we need to come to the insight that moving masses are inducing the surroundings by a second gravitational field, just like moving electrons cause induced magnetic fields and Lorentz forces to other moving charges.
This gravitational effect, caused by the velocity of masses, occurs in the bulge of disc galaxies by many fast spinning stars and (pseudo-) black holes, which generate a global gravitational angular momentum in the bulge, transmitted by gravity to the surroundings.
This is not a fancy theory or hypothesis. It has been proven by the Gravity Probe B experiment, which found that the orbital motion and the spin of the Earth cause gyroscopes' axes in satellites to be altered.
The proof of this behavior can be seen in bar galaxies: the bar is in fact caused by a re-oriented gravitational angular momentum of the bulge, after important collapses of stars, which have dramatically increased the spin rates. Hence, the bar is in fact an inclined part of the disc's central part in formation. The gravitational angular momentum will further be transmitted to the rest of the disc, and the whole disc will eventually be re-oriented.
With galaxy clusters, a similar problem arized with the wrong use of the virial theorem. This theorem is applicable if the side with the virial can be set to zero. In the present case, it would be so if either the system is fully cyclic or if the average velocity can be found if the system can be extended to an infinite time.
None of the cases are valid for galaxy clusters, but it is assumed so by the mainstream, and this gives indeed a wrong use of the virial theorem.
Since the virial theorem is used to determine the mass of the system, this estimation will be totally wrong.
With best regards,
Thierry De Mees
http://gsjournal.net/books/De-Mees-Gravitomagnetism-and-Coriolis-Gravity-2011-A4.pdf
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/58/Thierry,%20De%20Mees
Kasibhatla,
> But, the approximation with area is sufficient.
I disagree.
If you seek to know the number, N, of molecules/ions/atoms at the surface of an object of radius R then one might argue that;
N = (4.pi.R^2) / (pi.r^2)
Where r is the radius of a disc denoting the boundary of that molecule/ion/atom. One might argue that r is the mean free path length between such objects.
So your equation (A) is off by a factor of four.
(I have N spots on a balloon, I can draw circles of ~r radius around each spot)
James,
It is not off by a factor of 4. Because, the mean-free path of a Hydrogen atom on the surface of the Sun is considered spherical. Only then, we get the correct number of Hydrogen atoms on the surface. This is so; because, the mean-free path and the Hydrogen atomic radius are nearly of the same order. Hence, I have taken the surface area of the sphere of mean-free path of Hydrogen atom. Stands to scientific reason. We can not take pi*r^^2 ; because we can not consider the flat surface on the Sun; however big it may be.
Our Universe is the region where Newtonian and non-Newtonian gravitational forces coexist. Considering the Universe as a de Sitter bubble with a positive cosmological term, we take into account only non-Newtonian forces of repulsion and Newtonian forces of attraction. Newtonian forces are connected with the planets and stars of the fundamental sequence and majority of galaxies. Thus the interior equilibrium of the Universe is a result of the balance of these forces. In the Solar system, Newtonian forces act. But in other regions of the Universe other forces may dominate. The point is that gravitational inyteraction is determined by the physical properties of physical (material) objects: stars, galaxies, etc... The key moment is the correlation between the gravitational radius of the considered object, r_g = 2GM/c^2, where M is its mass, G is the Newtonian constant, and its physical radius, a. Evolution of every cosmic body is determined by the value r_g/a. For the Universe (the de Sitter bubble with a positive cosmological constant) and for quasars, this value is about 1. For super-giants, giants, red, yellow, brown, white dwarfs, r_g/a posseses values in the range from 10^-7 to 10^-4. For neutron stars, r_g/a is close to 5. Thus the Universe includes fundamental kinds of objects, which determine the kind of gravitational interaction in the regions, where they are situated. The Universe, quasars and neutron stars can be described as de Sitter bubbles, where non-Newtonian force of repulsion act. Stars of the main sequence and the planets are sources of Newtonian gravitational attraction. We live in the Newtonian gravitational field, which is a part of the Newtonian field of the Galaxy, because rg/a is very small for Milky Way. The value rg/a is a very important characteristic, because it indicates two different kind of gravitation: 1) if the gravitational sphere r = r_g is located deeply inside of a gravitating body, this body possess the field of the Newtonian type; 2) if the gravitational sphere approximately meets the surface of the body, the body possesses the non-Newtonian gravitational field of repulsion inside. It is necessary to note a very interesting special case, where r_g = r_br = a, where r_br is the radius of space breaking. The radius of space breaking is a distance at which g_11 of Schwarzschild's metric stands infinitely great. This space break can be inside the object. Note, if r = r_g, the component g_00 = 0. This means, that the observed time stops, and the 3-space is broken by this condition. Thus we consider the sphere inside an isolated body as a black hole, which is located inside any body. The well known Schwarzschild metric, describing the gravitational field of an isolated body, is the relativistic generalization of the well known Newton law, which is applicable to the flat 3-space. The Schwarzschild metric does not describe the weak gravitational field interpreted as the field of a distant body; it describes just the gravitational field of any body in an empty space-time. This means that a black hole exists inside every body; the radius of such a black hole is determined only by the value of mass M. The observed time τ at the surface r = r_g is stopped: dτ = (1 – r_g/r)dt = 0. We cannot know, what is the inner region of a black hole, but we feel permanently its affection as the attraction to the center of the planet Earth, which r_g = 87 mm. We can say that every body, for which r_g is very small to its radius a, is a permanent source of the gravitational energy of attraction. Thus such a black hole is a point of the network including all cosmic bodies of the given kind creating the gravitational forces of attraction in the Universe. Until now, we considered in fact the solution of Einstein's equations for an isolated body in emptiness. Consider now objects, for which r_g = r_br = a. This case is based on another paper of Schwarzshild, where he considered the gravitational field crated by the sphere filled with an ideal liquid having a constant density ρ. He obtained this solution by the condition that the space-time does not posses singularities, because this metric was applied to describe the Sun. If we consider this solution without this assumption, we obtain the solution allowing stopping the observed time and the breaking of space. In the partial case r_g = r_br = a we obtain the de Sitter space with a positive λ-term. This condition is realized by κρ = λ = 3/a^2, where κ = 8πG/c^2 is Einstein's constant. A calculation using the contemporary observable dates shows that this condition can take a place for the entire Universe, and for some neutron stars. The condition r_g = r_br = a means that such an object is in balance relatively to the gravitational forces of attraction and repulsion. Besides this means that such an object is simultaneously: 1) black hole; 2) inflational collapsar. In this case, the observed time at its surface is stopped. The surface τ = const is the surface of the present, where the future transforms to the past. This situation takes a place both for the Universe and for neutron stars. Thus we live inside a de Sitter collapsar, which includes also miniature collapsars ― neutron stars. Every collapsar lives, transforming the future into the past through the moment of the present. The future for neutron stars is the space of the Universe, the future of the Universe is an initial medium, situated out it. For information, the initial medium for the Universe is considered here as an ideal medium having a constant density, while the initial medium for neutron collapsars is physical vacuum. But the process of transformation is created by the Time. The point is that the spaces of the past and of the future are occupied by different particles: their relativistic masses are positive in our Universe, and are negative out it. For information: the Time is an energetic (non-material) substance possessing a fractal structure. The time of each structure has own range, which is: 1) the part of the higher structure range (for example, the Earth is a part of the Sun); 2) this range includes all the ranges of the underlying structures. All the ranges vibrate interchanging information (energy), and these vibrations have all the frequences of the material world.
Dark matter is a notion, which is not determined in the science, therefore let us to use conceptions which were used earlier. Such studies help stand connections between different conceptions, for example, between physical vacuum and cosmological forces of attraction and repulsion. I think, dark energy is a manifestation of gravitational repulsion.
@Larissa: "This means that a black hole exists inside every body"
So there's a black hole inside me?
And inside an apple?
If I eat the apple, are there now 2 black holes inside me?
"For neutron stars, r_g/a is close to 5....if the gravitational sphere approximately meets the surface of the body, the body possesses the non-Newtonian gravitational field of repulsion inside."
So if neutron stars possess a "gravitational field of repulsion", what holds them together? And why do they accrete matter from their environment (forming observed x-ray binaries and millisecond pulsars)?
@Ray
Please understand the super gravity surrounding a neutron. Since, this field is a small domain, we are not feeling it. The black holes which are holding galaxies are like the nucleii which hold the atoms and molecules. This is why when light passes near neutron in any medium, it gets bent. Now, you have reflection and refraction due to the neutron black holes in the medium.
Kasibhatla,
> Now, you have reflection and refraction due to the neutron black holes in the medium
How shall you demonstrate that these hypothetical black holes exist?
What stops them from emitting Hawking radiation?
And, may I add, I still think that you have a poor grasp of the appropriate equation for the number density in the sun's photosphere.
Consider a spherical shell of radius R_sun and thickness 2L, where 2L is the average separation between the hydrogen ions in the photosphere.
In this case, the volume of this finite-thickness shell is:
4*pi*R_sun^2*2L
Each ion has an effective volume of 4/3.pi.L^3.
So the total number is:
4.pi.R_sun^2.2L / (4/3.pi.L^3)
= 6.R_sun^2/ (L^2)
Your equation is still wrong.
With the addition of spurious black holes, I am wondering where this will lead.
James,
The way I derived the G is correct; because I have taken 4*pi*R_sun^2 / 4*pi*r^2 as the number of Hydrogen atoms , to emphasize that the Sun's surface need not be taken as flat. For a more accurate derivation the volume of the entire sun vis-a-vis the hydrogen atom needs to be taken. As I said, if you do the exact mathematics you will get the exact G. But, I was only trying to show the concept that gravity is because of the universal force : F = m^^2 * c^^3 / h. Here, for me, proving the concept is important. Not derivation of the exact value of G ; which is already well established.
Kasibhatla,
I will not post my comments a second time.
Please show me the flaw in my reasoning (a spherical shell, with a thickness of exactly the mean spacing between ions).
Dear James,
I am not saying there is a flaw in your reasoning. Both of us are doing approximations. Hence, the value of G also is approximate.
James,
Even if you take a spherical shell with thickness of the mean spacing of hydrogen ions, it is still approximate. Because, we are leaving out the gaps between the two successive ions. Whether spherical, or cylindrical , or circular , it is still approximate ; because we are leaving out uncovered gaps between the ions. Hence, an approximate G. Please, I hope you do agree that both of us are trying to look at the concept that universal force is indeed manifesting as gravity, and need not be worried about the exact derivation of G. If you do the exact math, exact G will come. I was only trying to show that this universal force is gravity while also manifesting as electricity, magnetism, strong and weak. Besides, it is my firm belief that any other force , hither-to-fore unknown also can be explained in terms of this universal force. Worth reading my pre-print ?
Kasibhatla,
> Worth reading my pre-print ?
I have read it and it was a waste of my time.
Number your equations.
Do not trivialize us with numerical coincidences when the dimensions of your equations are wrong.
Learn to integrate.
That spherical shell of ions?
The number density *has to* scale with the mean spacing between ions, r, to the power of -3.
(halve the radius of the ions, and the number density rises by a factor of 8)
Your equation has it scaling with the inverse square.
The numbers do not matter - dimensions of the equations *do*.
Who were the referees of that 'pre-print'? I wish to speak to them.
I note in passing that the IJSDR has numerous typographic errors on their homepage, and the notion that by refereeing a paper and allowing it to be published you get to earn a cash payment *is an utter disgrace*.
You should be ashamed to have chosen such a predatory journal.
James,
Dimensions of the equations are correct. Please, check.
It is not coincidence when you really look into the effort to bring out the result without sacrificing scientific method.
However, you try it the number density of the ions will always come approximate ; unless you do the exact complicated math.
I also don't know who are the referees of the journal IJSDR.
Practically, every journal including APS is predatory, nowadays.
Finally, please do not allow a few disagreements ( the disagreements are still to be resolved ) to bias your opinion about the entire pre-print. Please, try to encourage. Not nip in the bud.
Kasibhatla: Practically, every journal including APS is predatory, nowadays.
These ones are predatory:
https://beallslist.weebly.com/standalone-journals.html
...and IJSDR is one of the ones listed.
It's really not hard to identify and use the many non-predatory physics/astronomy journals, which are not on that list.
Dear Ray Butler,
I hope you are aware of the fact that practically every journal ; whether predatory or not ; asks for publication charges, I can not afford.
Kasibhatla,
Article Announcement: Applied Physics Letters eliminates publication...
And the entire thread of:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/is_there_any_free_publishing_journal_for_theoretical_physics
But, and I'll tell you this for nothing, you're a long way from where you want to be.
Ray,
I've asked the IJSR about their referee selection process - will relay what I hear back.
- Badges
- Science topic