Rodney, likeky such sounds naive but I am convinced all it takes is to „repair“ theory of relativity (starting with SRT!) by following and re-inserting the „missing“ Doppler-effect parameter as shown in the imho brilliant paper of Lev Verkhovsky:

Preprint Memoir on the Theory of Relativity and Unified Field Theory

Doing so and recalculating every given for granted assumption we will see, that there is no dark matter as rotation curves will suddenly fit again (like magic). GRT will be automatically fixed with this after.

All paradoxes of relativity of the last 100+ years will also be gone, like twin paradox. Relativity theory is not and was never wrong, it is and was incomplete from day one.

The consequential biggest blunder of Einstein however, to abolish the medium (ether) without real need and in full contradictions to plenty of warnings by others, including Planck and his original brilliant hexagonal cells for miniature charge transport vortices in spacetime, fully compatible to the model of iSpace theory, able to derive constants of nature from simple multiplicative first principles, will be the remaining ingredient to form the base of what will finally allow unification of quantum mechanics with gravity theory (showing predicted iSpace quantum of gravitation iFg is real):

iFg = (alphaG)^2 * PlanckForce

Article New novel physical constants metric and fine structure const...

Conference Paper iSpace - Deriving G from α, e, R∞, μ0 and Quantum of Gravita...

Preprint Hubble constant H0 is derived from Newtonian gravitational c...

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...

What follows is an analytical proof that a gravitational field contains a negative energy density. The proof is based on the ratios corresponding to a plate capacitor in the electrical case.

Fact 1 is that the plates attract. Fact 1 is expressed mathematically by saying that the energy change ∆W is proportional to the change in plate distance ∆d. ∆W=C*∆d with C>0.

Fact 2 is that there is no gravitational field between the two same plates with a radius much larger than the plate distance. However, moving the plates does not change the sum of field-free and field-filled space. Since the field-free volume V changes with ∆V=A*∆d, the field-filled volume changes with ∆V=-A*∆d. A is the surface area of the plate.

Fact 3 is the conservation of energy and that the gravitational field outside the plates does not change with a small displacement of the plates. We express fact 3 mathematically by ∆W="energy density of the gravitational field"*∆V.

Now let's use the mathematical formulas of the three facts:

∆W=C*∆d with C>0, ∆V=-A*∆d, ∆W="Energy density of the gravitational field"*∆V =>

C*∆d="Energy density of the gravitational field"*(-A*∆d)

=> "energy density of the gravitational field" =-C/A.

Since C and A are both positive, it clearly follows from the three facts given above that the energy density of the gravitational field is negative.

However, this does not mean that it has to be absolutely negative. There must be an omnipresent field that overcompensates for the negative energy density. We know this compensating field as dark energy.

This also does not mean that we must change the quantitative laws concerning gravity. But the negative energy density contained in gravitational fields leads to a new understanding of the gravitational force.

The general law is:

The force F on an object, which contributes to a force field is given by the derivative of the energy W contained in the field overlay of the contribution, in respect of the distance s between the object and the field source.

F=dW/ds. This force law holds for all forces in our world. The gravitational force is no exception.

Dark Matter is extra gravity as predicted by Einstein> the extra curvature of space time around massive bodies, for instance the Sun. But the maths is so complex that nobody has understood haw it works , Until now

Article

The formulation of Dynamic Newtonian advanced gravity, DNAg

cjp-dnag-2014-01

84.pdf

Article The formulation of Dynamic Newtonian advanced gravity, DNAg

Andrew Worsley "Dark Matter is extra gravity as predicted by Einstein> the extra curvature of space time around massive bodies, for instance the Sun. But the maths is so complex that nobody has understood haw it works , Until now"

No, the math is not so complex. F=dE/ds clearly describes the gravitational force. E is the energy contained in gravitational field overlays. This energy depends on relative distances s.

Rodney Bartlett > "We may not have gravity entirely right..."

This is the only answer to the question! Please see:

"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas": Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

"New Physics -The Negation of Einstein's Theories of Relativity The Real Phenomenology of Space-Time-Matter-Motion": Article New Physics -The Negation of Einstein's Theories of Relativi...

Andrew Worsley ,

Thank you for posting "The formulation of Dynamic Newtonian advanced gravity, DNAg"

• April 2014
• Canadian Journal of Physics Volume 92(11):1485-1488
• DOI:
• 10.1139/cjp-2014-0184
• 📷Andrew Worsley

Reading your article is an eye-opening experience because my article on George Eliot refers to Newton's gravitational theory as though it only applies to the solar system! If I understand correctly, your article demonstrates ways it can more accurately be applied to Mercury's perihelion (I thought Einstein had done the job perfectly) and also to pulsars!

My article is currently being peer reviewed at an academic journal which prohibits my posting the manuscript on Research Gate. However, I would be most beholden to you if you are in a position to take a look at my declarative statements about Newton in the herewith attached file and please also to point out glaring errors! My anonymous peer reviewers are likely to hold Ph.D. degrees in English literature.

The academic journal requires an Abstract, so here is what I submitted along with my manuscript submission:

"ABSTRACT: Adam Bede’s realistic portraiture connects characters to their natural environment,

analogically identifying them with celestial bodies. Hetty rises in stature as a

moonstruck country girl who outshines mercurial Dinah, earthy Adam, and stellar

Arthur. Adam Bede’s text spotlights metaphorical solar-lunar imagery amenable to

analysis through Newton’s gravity and Einstein’s relativity theories. Adam Bede depicts

Hetty and Arthur psychologically and figuratively in a prolonged love collision energized

by societal disfavor. Commensurate with Adam Bede’s large-scale treatment of

characters, and indicative of narratological inventiveness consistent with her

knowledge of mathematics and hard sciences, Eliot amalgamates omniscient

narration, terse asides, indirect discourse, and avant-garde stream-of-consciousness

technique. Sun Lee’s The Natural Laws of Plot: How Things Happen in Realist Novels

argues for unified plot and physical setting (2022). My exploratory essay argues

Adam Bede presents a unified vision of characters, social milieu, and astrophysical

environment. Hetty’s story models Newtonian tragic inevitability eclipsed by Einsteinian

humanism."

Keywords:

"George Eliot's scientific modernism; interdisciplinary literature and hard sciences of

astronomy, biology, chemistry, and physics; Adam Bede's astrophysical analogical

character portrayal; Isaac Newton gravitational laws; Albert Einstein's empirical

photoelectric law of relativity"

Corresponding Author:

"Nancy Ann Watanabe, Ph.D.

University of Oklahoma Bizzell Memorial Library: The University of Oklahoma Libraries

Seattle, WA UNITED STATES"

I will certainly understand if you are not interested because I am probably one of the few academics who is attempting to research, write, and publish interdisciplinary research articles in the combined or juxtaposed fields of science and literature. As you will see if you read the attached file, I take to task an article published in the most prestigious journal sponsored by the Modern Language Association of America (PMLA) for what it says about Einstein's theory of relativity of simultaneity, and the author of the article went on to become the editor-in-chief of the PMLA!

With my best regards.

Sincerely,

Nancy Ann Watanabe, Ph.D.

Professor of Comparative Literature

University of Oklahoma

Pacific Rim Research Professor of

Literature, Science, and Film

University of Washington

Abdul Malek "delta L³ x delta t = h/4π (1)" from

Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

does not match in physical units m³*s is not equal to kgm²/s, the units of an action.

The substitution of L² by (1/2mv²) also does not match.

The result "1/2(mv^2) x L x t = h/4π, (2)" still has different physical units on both sides.

Ok, it may be that dialectic does not care about physical units. But then physics also does not care about claims from dialectics.

Wolfgang Konle : Quantum dialectics does not accept ex nihilo nihil fit or the conservation laws of metaphysics, aka, official physics! You can see that the relation "delta L³ x delta t = h/4π (1)" refers to the virtual particles popping in and out of existence, it is an ontological issue; so conservation laws (of the single act of "Big Bang" creation) you use do not apply, so are the units! Conservation laws are of gross, apparent and approximate validity at the macroscopic scale of everyday life experience on earth and beyond! Please see the introduction in the following RG question: "Ex nihilo nihil fit“? Are You Certain Mr. Einstein and Mr. Heisenberg?" : https://www.researchgate.net/post/Ex_nihilo_nihil_fit_Are_You_Certain_Mr_Einstein_and_Mr_Heisenberg2

Abdul Malek "You can see that the relation "delta L³ x delta t = h/4π (1)" refers to the virtual particles popping in and out of existence, it is an ontological issue; so conservation laws (of the single act of "Big Bang" creation) you use do not apply, so are the units!"

If you compare things, which we describe with different units, for example "length" and "mass" then such a comparison does not make any sense at all.

In the common parlance we say comparing apples and oranges. And this stands for something which is inappropriate.

In physics we are more strict about that. Such a comparison is considered as being blatantly wrong. This has nothing to do with conservation laws, which you also want to ignore. Such a comparison or even considering those different things as being equal, is not only blatantly wrong, it definitively is absolute nonsense.

Using such a nonsense in dialectical arguments, does not rise the reputation of dialectical physics.

Wolfgang Konle >"In physics we are more strict about that. Such a comparison is considered as being blatantly wrong."

This is only in YOUR physics, my friend. You have no understanding of quantum physics or philosophy! Materialist dialectics, like classical physics up to Engels' time, strictly followed the conservation laws (as indicated in my article on Newton-Kepler; because nobody till Engels' time could even imagine the quantum phenomena (which Engels missed only by few years). How the world came to be (the ontological question) was still a mystery like physics for the materialist dialectics of Marx and Engels, for example. As I mentioned so many times before in RG, only Hegel's philosophy of space-time-matter-motion dealing with the contradiction "Being-Nothing", dealt with the ontological question and in a very obscure and highly speculative way anticipated the quantum phenomena.

Quantum dialectics is different from (old) materialist dialectics, the same way quantum physics is different from classical physics! I take the credit of extending Hegel's philosophy of space-time-matter-motion (in contrast to Minkiwski-Einstein "spacetime" geometrical construct) to the quantum electrodynamics and the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum; in an infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe. You can see my (decades-long) published work on these issues in my RG profile and in the references in the following RG question. You "physicists" are just blinded by Platonic-Einsteinian mathematical idealism; to SEE objective reality!

"https://www.researchgate.net/post/Ex_nihilo_nihil_fit_Are_You_Certain_Mr_Einstein_and_Mr_Heisenberg2

Wolfgang Konle : I think I have given enough time to respond to your queries. Please read the articles and the references mentioned, before you take any more issues with my article. My RG profile is exploding with number of reads, recommendations, since I published my "New Physics", yesterday. So, I have to attend to some other issues. Thanks for your interest on my work.

Abdul Malek "This (no comparison of different things) is only in YOUR physics, my friend.)

In your science a comparison of apples and oranges is ok?!

The effects that we ascribe to the presence of dark matter can also be explained by saying that current GR is wrong, and that he field equations are actually more nonlinear than under Einstein's system.

Einstein's approach encourages us to assume that there is a flat universal background level of field below which we can never go, and that he fields of individual masses are just superimposed on this background flat gravitational floor. The "flat floor" (pseudo-Euclidean geometry, locally curved but globally flat, like a cardboard egg-tray) is a useful assumption if you want to prove that he universe is stable and a fixed size.

But our universe is chaotic and expanding, and different parts would seem to be expanding at different rates. If expansion is a measure of timeflow, then less-dense regions should expand faster than denser regions, giving a "ballooning out" of space in the more rarefied regions, and generating a foam-like structure at large scales, with galaxies concentrated as walls between adjacent bubbles, and threads where three bubbles meet.

This is pretty much what we see on the large space surveys.

With nonlinearity, and no floor, time runs faster between galaxies, and the inter-galactic spaces are more fluid, with rotating galaxies being more self-contained, end experiencing less rotational dragging by their outside universe.

Reducing the effect of inertia outside galaxies has the same basic effect as increasing the amount of inertial mass inside galaxies.

Preprint Dark matter without dark matter

----

If the relativity community, sixty to eighty years ago, had published any sort of half-serious analysis of what we should look out for in case GR1916 was wrong and a more nonlinear theory was right, those studies would have told us to look for enhanced gravitational lensing and peripheral matter in rotating galaxies circling faster than it ought to under GR1916.

The effects that we should have been looking out for, which would have been considered environmental evidence that Einstein's system was wrong, have now been found, but are instead used to argue for the existence of dark matter.

Because the community doesn't have any proper assessment system for theories of gravity. The systems it does have are largely junk, because they have been carefully tailored to exclude any possibility of Einstein's fundamental architecture being wrong, and "fiddled with" to try to give Einstein's system the best possible score.

Eric Baird "The effects that we ascribe to the presence of dark matter can also be explained by saying that current GR is wrong, and that he field equations are actually more nonlinear than under Einstein's system."

What you are telling here sounds very mysterious. But indeed, the current theory of gravitation has a gap.

The problem is the assumption that the gravitational force is caused by the potential gradient. In fact it is caused by the energy density of gravitational fields. This energy density is negative, but not negative definite.

The negative value is compensated by an omnipresent dark energy background.

Gravitation simply is a reduction in the dark energy density.

Einstein had foreseen such a possibility. It matches to a positive value of his cosmological constant Λ.

Well, if space prefers being straight to being curved, and if a "kink" propagating through space has a tendency to try to straighten out, then the universe will have a tendency to try to expand, just in order to reduce curvature.

I'm not sure that this requires any new physical concepts.

If all significant changes of state in a system that affect massenergy distribution have to be communicated with the outside world as the propagation of a change in the system's exterior field -- a tiny gravitational wave -- then all thermal systems will be constantly generating little outwardly-propagating kinks in spacetime and losing energy, and the straightening-out of these kinks will then be constantly converting energy into additional space.

We then have a thermodynamic arrow of time appearing at the lowest possible level of classical physics, and fundamental law becomes time-asymmetrical.

Preprint On Microgravitational Waves

Nancy Ann Watanabe

Thanks for telling me about your reply, Nancy. As you wrote in your email, it's rather tangential. But I think tangential is good. Everything in the universe - and in all periods of time - is intimately connected, in my opinion. So anything has some connection and relevance to anything else, even if the two things seem to be totally and permanently separate. So science and literature, for example, can't exist without each other. I had a look through your article and I very much like the sentence, "My close reading of Eliot’s Adam Bede demonstrates that applying genuine scientific knowledge to writing and reading literature strengthens texts and readers".

Given physics is mass-based with all its equations, namely momentum and inertia, inventing "matter" is akin to cryptocurrency. How do we police this, right? Should human civilization be worried in making too many things up?

Is there a known limit we can make things up and get away with for the survival of any species as we use technology as our survival tools?

Eric Baird "Well, if space prefers being straight to being curved, and if a "kink" propagating through space has a tendency to try to straighten out, then the universe will have a tendency to try to expand, just in order to reduce curvature."

Space as a part of nature cannot prefer something. Einstein's field equation with constant Λ show that the scalar space curvature is proportional to the density of dark energy.

We know that this dark energy density gets excited by all moving gravitational fields. Every amount of mass or energy causes a small reduction, a dent, of the dark energy density in its environment. In case of movement, the dark energy must flow around the moving dent. This deposits kinetic energy in the dark energy.

But if the density of the dark energy gets enhanced, the space curvature gets increased. But an increasing curvature shrinks the space volume, which additionally increases the energy density.

Therefor it is just the opposite. The space is shrinking and not expanding.

The QSSC used the basic form of the GR field equation with a postulate that Creation field were sources at the center of spiral galaxies. It works for the rotation curve problem better than dark matter.

Well, we have two main hypotheses to explain the "galaxy rotation curve" and "lensing" anomalies:

Hypothesis #1 makes scientifically testable predictions, hypothesis #2 not so much.

According to hypothesis #1, this is purely a field effect, and therefore, we can predict that:

• Dark matter doesn't clump or stick to itself, it passes straight through other normal matter and dark matter.
• There are no isolated dark matter stars or galaxies.
• Dark matter is always associated with normal matter.
• With large collisions, the gravitomagnetic shockwave should generate an apparent plume of dark matter, but this will disappear as the field normalises.

So far, all the "dark matter is actually a field effect" predictions seem to be borne out by our observations. There appears to be nothing to tell us that these are anything other than field effects, apart from the strength of our religious conviction that Einstein couldn't possibly have used the wrong field equations.

As scientists, given the choice between #1 and #2, we should all be choosing #1 by default, because that's the one that makes testable predictions from known principles. The GR community should have been actively looking for evidence of Einstein's GR being wrong, they should have already mapped out the consequences of hypothesis #1 before the supporting evidence was available, and the evidence would then have confirmed the predictions made by supposing that textbook GR wasn't right.

The fact that almost the whole community seems to be going for #2 suggests that this is not science in action. This is a more self-serving social behaviour.

----

If I read things correctly, you re suggesting an Option # 3, that dark matter effects are indeed field-theory effects, but rather than being a correction to the existing faulty field equations, we assume that the existing laws are correct, and instead invent a new form of field that explains the difference between Einstein's field predictions and the ones we actually see appearing to be in operation.

If #1 is correct, then I suppose that #3 also ought to work, at least as a first approximation.

Personally, though, I'd much rather try to fix mistakes at the root rather than come up with potentially recursive sets of correction factors (epicycles!).

But perhaps #3 might be a pragmatic useful way forward. Perhaps I should come to terms with the fact that academia is inherently dumb, and that there's currently probably no realistic chance of getting researchers to take #1 seriously, and that #3 has a greater chance of social success in the community (and a greater chance of getting published and discussed), because dark energy is a sexy new-sounding thing that students will already have heard of. It has an implied legitimacy.

I do worry though, that since the existing system is geometrical garbage, we probably shouldn't be trying to build more and more layers of theory on top of a garbage foundation. If the existing system was merely wrong, then it should have been possible to derive a consistent field correction to the existing consistently-wrong field predictions. But the current system isn't consistent, it's contradictory and pathological. That suggests that any internally-consistent further physics built on that inconsistent base will produce a compound theory that is still contradictory and pathological. That seems to me to be a bit like trying to build a skyscraper on top of landfill.

I genuinely wish you success with it, and think you may make some genuine progress ... but at some point, the community is going to have to bite the bullet and accept that basic change is needed at the level of fundamental physics. We can't go on like this.

Eric Baird "Well, we have two main hypotheses to explain the "galaxy rotation curve" and "lensing" anomalies"

There is a third hypothesis.

The dark energy compensates for the negative energy density of gravitational fields. Every object, including a photon is surrounded by a gravitational field. This field reduces the dark energy density, it creates a dent in the dark energy density. If the object moves, dark energy flows around the co-moving dent. This flow deposits kinetic energy and therefor increases the dark energy density.

In the interior of stars, there is an extreme activity of moving objects and photons. Therefore a lot of kinetic energy is transferred to the dark energy. This energy flows out of the stars in the form of an increased dark energy density.

An increased dark energy density is the opposite of a decreased dark energy density as caused by gravitational fields. This means that the energy flow out of stars shields a part of the gravitational impact of the mass of the star.

The energy flow decays like gravitational fields with 1/r², which means that we cannot see a difference to normal gravitation.

But there is a difference. If the energy flow has decayed to the background energy density, the gravitational impact of the schielded mass suddenly appears, seemingly from nothing.

The mass, which has been shielded by the energy flow is considered to be the dark matter.

Hi Wolfgang

The point is that Einstein uses four dimensional tensor calculus, plus a bit of extra gravity. If the maths wasn't so complex you could easily see that extra gravity as dark matter particularly around black holes. Thus most of the extra gravity of dark matter can be seen at galactic centres where there is a supermassive black hole. Hope I have explained this sufficiently well.

Hi Eric,

I don't assume Einstein was right, he set a speed limit c to gravity, that speed limit applies to matter and not space -time

We know that phase wave velocity x group velocity = c^2

Which give space=time a lot more leeway.

Andrew Worsley "If the maths wasn't so complex you could easily see that extra gravity as dark matter particularly around black holes."

If you consider Einstein's field equations with the cosmological constant, but for a universe without mass, you will see the global picture, the structure of the universe. Local peculiarities, like black holes, do not matter in the global picture.

The name given maybe wasn't a proper one.

Mayve tohe gravitational constant is no so constant, in fact I would find it strange if anything in the universe were constant.

Sergio Perez Felipe "I would find it strange if anything in the universe were constant."

The anthropic principle requests that everything in the universe must have been constant during at least the last six billion years.

If natural constants would change their values, biochemical properties would be changed. But this means that evolutionary achievements would lose their validity. In this case we would be on a development stage below that of primitive archaea which have not reached a cell state.

Wolfgang Konle

Surely it will take a long time before we can detect very slight variations in our constants, the universe is very large.

This link is about a not-so-constant cosmological "constant"!

https://www.space.com/supernova-survey-suggests-dark-energy-may-change-over-time

Hi Wolfgang

I do like your third hypothesis and would paraphrase it thus:

Gravitons repel dark energy creating an energy density gradient around gravitational objects.

Dark matter is illusory to explain some observations that accepted physics has failed to explain. The QSSC model does explain the observations plus it adds a Machian explanation that GR lacks.

A change from Newton's speculations (queries) in " Opticks" about gravity and light diffraction need only be expanded. But this produces a model quite different from modern form of gravity.

CNPS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtbSroyJ4lU

So, go back to Newton, use the experiments of 18th and 19th centuries and rethink the physics.

Hodge

Andrew Worsley "Gravitons repel dark energy creating an energy density gradient around gravitational objects."

More simple:

Gravitational fields squeeze dark energy out of the volume around gravitational objects.

John Hodge "The Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (QSSC) posits a continuous creation at the center of galaxies"

How does the QSSC theory avoid a contradiction with conservation laws?

DARK MATTER

It is fundamentally wrong to assume the existence of fictitious Dark Matter for explaining the pattern of circular velocities of stellar objects in galactic spiral arms.

Let a stellar object of mass m, with circular velocity Vc and radial velocity Vr, be located within a spiral arm at a radial distance R from the galactic centre. Let Mr be the total baryonic mass within a sphere of radius R. Assuming approximate validity of the shell theorem for the galactic disc region and also assuming that the stellar object under consideration is moving solely under the influence of central force field of the galaxy, radial acceleration dVr/dt of the object will be given by,

dVr/dt = -GMr/R2 + Vc2/R

While justifying the necessity of dark matter, the radial acceleration dVr/dt is assumed to be zero and all trajectories of stellar objects are implicitly assumed to be circular, which is wrong. The circular or tangential velocities of stellar bodies are not directly produced by the radial acceleration field of the galaxy but depend on the initial angular momentum of the accreting matter with respect to the gravitating body. Conservation of angular momentum will ensure increase in circular velocity of stellar bodies as their distance from central gravitating body keeps decreasing. Let L be the angular momentum of the stellar object of mass m while entering the outer fringes of the galaxy which will remain constant throughout its motion within the central gravitational field. The circular velocity Vc of this object, at any distance from the center of the gravitating mass Mr, will be given by Vc = L/(m.R) and this does not depend upon mass Mr. That is, the increase in circular velocity Vc with decreasing R does not depend on the strength of central gravitation field or magnitude of Mr, but is solely governed by the conservation of angular momentum. Hence it is fundamentally wrong to assume the existence of fictitious Dark Matter for explaining the pattern of circular velocities of stellar objects in spiral arms.

There are other reasons for explaining the flatness of rotation curve but definitely not the assumption of higher mass Mr or Dark Matter. In reality stellar objects in spiral arms do not move solely under the influence of central gravitation field of the galaxy, their motion is also influenced by the local gravitation fields within the spiral arms. There are localized gravitating bodies existing within the spiral arms, which produce their own gravitation field in addition to the gravitational field of the central gravitating body.

Article Ionic Gravitation and Ionized Solid Iron Stellar Bodies

Sergio Perez Felipe "Surely it will take a long time before we can detect very slight variations in our constants, the universe is very large.

This link is about a not-so-constant cosmological "constant"!"

Yes, the cosmological constant is related to the overall dark energy density. The dark energy density increases with the gravitational energy transfer from moving particles to dark energy.

This increasing dark energy also increases the scalar space curvature ~1/R² and therefor decreases the space volume = 2π²R³. The volume shrinking amplifies the increment of the energy density.

But I am talking about all the various natural constants, which define the properties of matter. Those constants must really stay constant, because of the anthropic principle.

Wolfgang Konle

I don't know, in fact nobody.

Vacuum permitibity and permeability are not constants, the speed of light can be calculated with those 2 unstable variables!

Dark matter could be related with a modification in the cosmological constant too.

I think it's an error, I have a theory about the quantum vacuum and how it could work as a densities system. All fixed in the universe! don't you think is weird?

Look, constants and their uncertaintity, anyway proton mass could be much bigger for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physical_constants

Hi Wolfgang,

In physics all fields and forces are caused respectively by: Photons /electroweak force, gluons/strong force hence we have gravitons /gravitational force.

Cause and effect, gravitational fields do not come out of no where.

Sergio Perez Felipe > "All fixed in the universe! don't you think is weird?"

Indeed it is "weird"! Because it comes from faith and axiomatic truth cooked-up in individual human brain! Please consider the following two publication:

"New Physics -The Negation of Einstein's Theories of Relativity The Real Phenomenology of Space-Time-Matter-Motion": Article New Physics -The Negation of Einstein's Theories of Relativi...

“The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

Rodney Bartlett,

a few clarifications:

Dark matter. There is none. Many have searched for it but all have failed.

However as I have predicted in my first book, 90% of the mass of the universe is due to neutrinos. Want they do?

Dark energy. I have found serious problems with the original paper (1998). I made the conclusion that is is an illusion. There are also later reports that do not support it. My third book.

LCDM. A recent report finds that it is just wong.

Hans Gennow "Dark matter. There is none. Many have searched for it but all have failed."

They didn't find it because they have looked for it at the wrong places.

The gravitational impact of Dark matter is caused by star-matter, which up to a certain distance has been shielded by a gradient of dark energy.

Dark energy streams out of stars, which excite dark energy by interaction with the extreme energetic activity in their interior volume. The flow decays with 1/r² according to the decay of the gravitational acceleration. But the flow ends abruptly as soon as the background intensity level is reached. But the gravitational potential gradient never ends. This range difference between mass-caused gravitation and gravitation caused by the density gradient of dark energy, is misinterpreted as dark matter.

Wolfgang Konle,

so, you know better than all the others.

Wolfgang Konle

it doesn't just like the BIG BANG model doesn't.

My STOE takes one more hypothesis - that elliptical galaxies harbor Sinks. The 2 act to hunt (in the thermodynamic sense) the temperature of the universe of 2.7 kelvin. Thus, expansion when Sources predominate and contraction when Sinks predominate.

Hans Gennow "so, you know better than all the others."

I know that nobody can be convinced. Everybody is fixed on his/her belief.

Therefor my request is to check the hypothesis about a dark energy stream out of stars with gravitational impact as an alternate explanation for dark matter.

It is extremely difficult to convince somebody about the negative energy density of gravitational fields. Even a clear and obvious proof gets misunderstood or ignored. If somebody then finally does not find another argument against the proof, he/she is quiet for a while. But then the old claim about gravitons or some other weird explanations reappears. The proof then could be presented again, but finally with the same result.

John Hodge About sinks and sources in your theory

Again, how do you avoid in your theory a conflict with conservation laws?

They don't enter the picture. The is always friction.

John Hodge "They (conservation laws) don't enter the picture. There is always friction."

Exactly that, disregarding energy conservation, is the problem in your consideration. Whatever happens in active galactic nuclei, the total sum of energy consumption and energy supply always is zero. Friction does not change that.

Only a cyclic process has a chance to avoid the thermal death of the universe after all suns have consumed their fusion fuel.

The key to such a cyclic process is in the existence of dark energy, which compensates for the negative energy density in gravitational fields.

This energy has the capability to invert the phase transition from neutron star matter to black hole matter. Once, this phase transition has been enforced by an overpowering gravitation. But later on a growing dark energy density can invert the power conditions and release the matter, trapped in black holes.

Wolfgang Konle,

I just ,mention that I read a report on solar axions. They claim to have a weak signal but much to weak to my mind. Also, they have not accounted for background from tritium.

I has nothing to do with dark energy which does not exist as you should know by now.

If you claim something then present the facts!

Hans Gennow "If you claim something then present the facts!"

Imagine a giant hydrogen cloud in space. This cloud shrinks gravitationally. By shrinking, it increases its gravitational field and does work against the gas-kinetic pressure, and the temperature of the cloud rises.

All this work was done by the gravitational field as it became stronger.

Nothing other than the gravitational field and the pressure and temperature of the gas are altered in this scenario.

The conservation of energy clearly states that the sum of the field energy, the energy of the pressure * volume change and the thermal energy, is zero.

Say what you will, but this scenario clearly shows that stronger gravitational fields contain less energy than weak fields.

“Dark Matter - Do we need to change the law of gravity? Or is there extra mass in the universe?”

- from what is now known about Gravity it follows that with a really large probability there is no necessity in changing “the law of gravity” in sense that the fundamental Nature Gravity force really fundamentally exists; and at statics it acts as a long range 1/r potential Force; action of which at statics so is well described by Newton gravity law.

Though yeah, the standard now in mainstream physics the GR Gravity theory, which is based on fundamentally wrong postulate that gravitational interactions in gravitationally coupled systems of bodies are some interactions in systems “mass-spacetime –mass” should be “changed”, i.e. instead the GR really scientific theory must be developed; but that is important at rather large Gravity fields, while in weak fields the GR seems is better applicable than Newton theory

What is Gravity Force really – see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale initial physical Gravity model in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces,

- where, including, the main problems that should be solved at development of whole really scientific Gravity theory are pointed.

However yet now from the fact that galaxies peripheral stars motion is at a rather good approximation described by using Newton Gravity + introduction of large distributed in haloes dark matter mass, it rather substantively follows that some “dark matter” really exists.

Nonetheless the anomaly motion of the stars above is described now also by some modifications of the Newton Gravity – “MOND theories”, where Gravity acts not exactly as 1/r, because of dependent on r variation of gravitational constant G, really cannot be abandon for sure,

- since besides rather, if too, questionable assumption about G variation, at motion of bodies in gravitational fields Gravity indeed acts as not 1/r, as that, say, yet in 1898 Paul Gerber assumed, when obtained so correct Mercury orbit precession shift value, the same is in the GR in this case.

Recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_GR_require_dark_matter_to_be_present_to_hold_a_galaxy_together_Would_First_Motion_be_an_improvement is relevant to this thread question.

Cheers

According to me, the required extra gravity needed to explain the outer regions of galaxies remaining in place is a fallacy of the mind.

There is no extra gravity required because a galaxy is already moving under collective properties based on the initial motion established during the Big Bang.

* When twenty skaters are all skating in the same direction, one does indeed see a group, and one will be able to discover group behaviors. Yet the skaters are not moving on group power; each skater skates under his or her own power.

Same for masses in a galaxy. They are already moving collectively in the same direction (at their fastest speed), so there is no need to explain that aspect through the gravitational force.

The 'sent-off' push by the materialization process is not based on gravity, so the entire discussion about Dark Matter is based on the perception that something is missing, whereas there isn't anything missing.

Article On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter...

Considering the negative energy density of gravitational fields and the fact that a negatively definite energy density cannot exist is sufficient to understand dark matter.

These two facts prove the existence of dark energy, dense enough to compensate the negative energy density of gravitational fields.

Gravitation then is caused by a gradient in the dark energy density. Every object including photons creates a small dent in the dark energy density. Every moving dent loses some energy, because the dark energy then streams around the dent. The energy loss is compensated by a loss of kinetic energy of the moving object.

The according energy loss of the processes in the interior of stars is exceptionally high. The additional energy transferred, enhances the dark energy density. This density gradient has a gravitational impact and partially shields the gravitational impact of the star’s matter.

But the shielding vanishes as soon as the additional density has been reduced to the mean level in the environment. The gravitational impact of the full star matter does not vanish.

The shielded star matter, whose gravitational impact reappears in a large distance from the star, is understood as the dark matter.

Last post that scientifically answers the thread question is the SS post on page 5.

Cheers

Wolfgang Konle

If we change models, then gravity can already be understood, as is.

If we accept Einstein's Spacetime, then we bought into the model. Only when moving away from the model (either into another model, or just through viewing the mechanical reality of matter in space) can we escape the required dark energy as a medium.

Wolfgang, apologies for declaring this all as rather simple and easy to understand. Here is an example to make this obvious.

North, south, east, and west do not exist on a planet that does not spin. On a spinning planet, north, south, east and west are real indeed. That makes these directions phenomena that we can work with. Nevertheless, there is no physical difference between a planet spinning and a non-spinning planet.

Now, if we were to device a model in which there must always be directions, then the non-spinning planet presents us with a problem of missing directions.

The mistake? The mistake is in the model. It desires to present an absolute truth whereas in reality it should show us a relative truth.

Same for gravity.

When we take gravity as an absolute truth, then we will end up missing gravity.

Looking for gravitons is like looking for directions on a non-spinning planet.

There are other options to declare what is going on with gravity. The simpler the explanation, the better (but not too simplistic of course).

Fred-Rick Schermer "There are other options to declare what is going on with gravity. The simpler the explanation, the better (but not too simplistic of course)."

What other options do you mean?

Since none of those models quite fit the observations, time to think completely outside the box. Whatever the model proposed, it must fit the cosmology and the small observations.

John Hodge "Since none of those models quite fit the observations, time to think completely outside the box."

Yes, let's start with considering a new model out of the box for the cause of the gravitational force and even for any force on objects.

The real cause of a force F on an object is the dependence of an energy content E on the position s of the object. F=dE/ds. (A directed derivative)

This applies to all forces on our planet, including gravity. To find the cause of a force on an object in a given situation, we only need to identify the energy content, which depends on the position of the object.

For the gravitational force F on an object, this energy E is contained in the superposition of the Earth's gravitational field with the field of the object. s is the height component of the object's position. Again, we have F=dE/ds. The derivative is a directed derivative and defines the magnitude and direction of the force vector. We must also not confuse this derivative with a gradient. A gradient is something local. The direction derivative, on the other hand, takes into account all spatially distributed contributions to energy E.

The fundamentally new aspect is that this explanation, which relates directly to energy, replaces all explanations based on potentials which contain no energy at all. Potentials are simply expressions of energy per mass or energy per charge.

Wolfgang Konle,

the force on an object by a source is given by the inverse distance squared from the source.

Why complicate it?

Sergey Shevchenko,

ever heard about neutrinos? They can fix the velocity distribuion of the galaxies as I have shown. No need for any dark matter that nobody in any case have not seen.

Hans Gennow "the force on an object by a source is given by the inverse distance squared from the source."

A source of what? What does the source provide to be a source? What causes the force on the object? How does the source know something about the object to adapt the force to the mass or charge of the object? With what mechanism does our galaxy attract our sun and let it circulate around its center?

Asking those questions does not complicate things. Leaving these question unanswered puts explaining physical facts under the influence of mysticism.

With the energy density of force fields these questions can be answered without bothering mysticism. I am curious how you would answer those questions.

Wolfgang Konle,

a source of anykind of force erects a field that will act on any neihbouring object, The effect you can calculate as I have given.

Wether the source is a mass or charge or whatever is irrelevant. The only thing to remember is that if you deal with the strong and weak forces you have to take into account the limited range.

What is so unclear to you? Look up an elementary textbook if needed.

Hans Gennow "a source of anykind of force erects a field that will act on any neihbouring object, The effect you can calculate as I have given."

A field acts with its energy density. That is all I am claiming.

To be explicitly clear, the force impact is caused by the fact that the superposition of fields contains energy density proportional to the field strength squared. This dependency of the energy content E on the distance s between the objects, which are the source of the field, causes the force F on the object. F=dE/ds (a direction derivative)

If you have in mind a different action mechanism, not based on energy density, you should describe it.

But your phrase that the force F depends on the distance s between the objects which cause the fields, is not sufficient, because it does not explain the cause and the amount of the force.

Do you think F=dE/ds is correct?

Hans Gennow, to

“…Sergey Shevchenko,

ever heard about neutrinos? They can fix the velocity distribuion of the galaxies as I have shown. No need for any dark matter that nobody in any case have not seen...”

- believe me that I heard about neutrinos, including, say, that neutrinos – in contrast to dark matter particles, though very weakly interact with other matter by Weak Force, nonetheless interact, and so are seen; and from what is in this case observed about neutrinos flows in, say Milky Way, the number/density of neutrinos by no means can constitute to the galaxy mass a part few time larger than its visible mass, as that rather possibly correctly is observed..

Though that really is inessential – neutrinos are too light particles [rest mass well lesser 1eV] to compose any stable gravitationally coupled systems, including, rather possibly existent, galaxies’ haloes, since really can have rather large speeds, which are much larger than galaxies’ escape velocities [~ thousand km/s near center, ~ few km/s on periphery],

- that would be in principle possible only in an unbelievable in physics case when neutrinos were created with ~ zero kinetic energy; and so have now temperature too near 0K.

About what are rather probably dark matter particles it is quite rigorously scientifically rationally shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, in this case see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physicssection “Cosmology” – that can be relict primary particles, which had/have only Gravity Force charges [“gravitational masses”], which were created firstly, and at interactions of a part of which the “visible matter” was created without visible antimatter; the larger part didn’t interact and exists till now..

reDzennn comment [4 passages] in https://phys.org/news/2023-10-pulsars-dark.html is relevant in this case.

Cheers

“…[Hans Gennow quote] "a source of anykind of force erects a field that will act on any neihbouring object, The effect you can calculate as I have given."[end quote]

→ A field acts with its energy density. That is all I am claiming. …”

- as that is evidently follows from the energy conservation law, any fundamental Nature forces fields by no means contain any energy. Though yeah, that is postulated in all classic theories of fields and QFTs, where the Forces’ charges constantly and always radiate the fields that have “energies densities”, etc. but for any normal human it is evident that for this it is necessary for charges to have some mystic sources of mystic infinite energies.

So why and how elements of coupled by some Force nonetheless interact, evidently exchanging by energies/momentums? – that is quite rigorously scientifically rationally shown in SS&VT initial models of at least of 2007 Gravity, Electric, and 2023 Nuclear, Forces,

- more about what are Gravity and Electric Forces see the link above, section 6“Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems” or https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces;

- about Nuclear Force see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

Cheers

Wolfgang Konle,

I just note that i use the simple way and you the complicated way.

Sergey Shevchenko,

neutrinos will be a bit faster then other perticles but not as much you think. They can gather up in the ouskirts of galaxies. I found it to be enough to fix the velocity distribution of the galaxies. Remember that I estimated that neutrinos could account for 90% of the mass of the universe. They will be noticed.

Neutrinos can in fact clump together giving rise to lensing.

Then I note that nobody have found any dark matter.

Hans Gennow "I just note that i use the simple way and you the complicated way."

What is your simple way to explain the gravitational force on an object?

Sergey Shevchenko "as that is evidently follows from the energy conservation law, any fundamental Nature forces fields by no means contain any energy. Though yeah, that is postulated in all classic theories of fields and QFTs, where the Forces’ charges constantly and always radiate the fields that have “energies densities”, etc. but for any normal human it is evident that for this it is necessary for charges to have some mystic sources of mystic infinite energies."

Sorry, but this is blatant nonsense.

All force fields contain an energy density. The field source does not permanently renew the field. The field simply co-moves with its source. If the source gets accelarated, it radiates. The aperiodic part of the radiation adapts the field to the new velocity.

The adaptation of the static field is the purpose of the radiation. The periodic part of the radiation is present because required by the wave equation.

It is obvious that this view on field theory and on the radiation of accelerated masses or charges is not standard. But the standard is simply wrong in this aspect.

Hans Gennow,

“…neutrinos will be a bit faster then other perticles but not as much you think. They can gather up in the ouskirts of galaxies. I found it to be enough to fix the velocity distribution of the galaxies….”

- again, see the SS post above, from what is known in physics nothing follows for the assumption that an essential part of real neutrinos, which are really created at real particles interactions, including decays, have energies even lesser 1 eV; while even if neutrinos rest mass is 1 eV [experimentally really well lesser], if a neutrino has 1eV energy, it moves in space with Lorentz factor 2, i.e. with speed ~ 260 thousands km/s. While, again, escape velocities in galaxies even near centers are a few thousands km/s and mostly lesser.

“….Remember that I estimated that neutrinos could account for 90% of the mass of the universe. They will be noticed. Neutrinos can in fact clump together giving rise to lensing.

Then I note that nobody have found any dark matter. …..”

- that looks as rather questionable – on one hand nobody have found any dark matter, while neutrinos are dark matter. And have mass ~ two times larger than postulated in accordance with real observations interpretations standard cosmology dark matter.

Wolfgang Konle

“…[SS quote] Though yeah, that is postulated in all classic theories of fields and QFTs, where the Forces’ charges constantly and always radiate the fields that have “energies densities”, etc. but for any normal human it is evident that for this it is necessary for charges to have some mystic sources of mystic infinite energies." [end quote]

→ Sorry, but this is blatant nonsense. All force fields contain an energy density. The field source does not permanently renew the field. The field simply co-moves with its source.. ….”

- the italic looks as rather strange. In SS posts on RG and in this thread numerously already it was/is pointed, that in mainstream physics classical and quantum electrodynamicses textbooks in this case quite evidently correctly it is written that fundamental Forces charges constantly and always radiate their mediators, i.e. the Forces’ fields,

- that is evidently necessary since the Forces don’t affect something instantly, i.e. when the mediators/fields spread in 3D space with infinite speed; the speeds are fundamentally limited, and in vacuum are equal to the speed of light.

That is another thing, that, again, really the fields don’t contain/carry energy; what and how Forces do in the reality – see at least for Electric, Gravity, and Nuclear Forces in the SS&VT Planck scale models in the links in yesterday SS post.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko "...it is written that fundamental Forces charges constantly and always radiate their mediators, i.e. the Forces’ fields"

Somewhere this may be written. But nevertheless it is wrong.

All force fields are located with its source in the inertial reference system of their source. This intrinsically means that they are co-moving with their source.

In this situation it is obvious that the field source does not need to do anything to maintain its fields.

Only if the source gets accelerated it must adapt its fields to the new velocity.

Therefor accelerated field sources radiate. They radiate electromagnetically and gravitationally. The aperiodic part of the radiation adapts the field to the new velocity of the source. This radiation propagates with the speed of light. But the field itself is already present where it is, according to the movement of its source. Apart from the radiation in case of the field source acceleration, there is no interaction between the source and the remote parts of its field.

Sergey Shevchenko,

in the original process where particles are created all will have exactly the same speed. Due to interactions charge particles will slow down a bit more than neutrinos.

The dark matter that has been discussed only concerns heavier objects, like axions.

Hans Gennow "in the original process where particles are created all will have exactly the same speed"

Impossible!

Wolfgang Konle,

the particles will infact have a kinetic energy worth of one mass. This is the outcome of the Dirac equation.

Hans Gennow "the particles will infact have a kinetic energy worth of one mass. This is the outcome of the Dirac equation."

Still impossible! Even having exact the same kinetic energy but different directions of their velocity is impossible.

Last posts that scientifically answer/comment the thread question are in SS posts on pages 5, 6,7.

Hans Gennow,

- sorry, but that

“…in the original process where particles are created all will have exactly the same speed. Due to interactions charge particles will slow down a bit more than neutrinos….”

- looks as too non-evidently physically correct claim. That

“…The dark matter that has been discussed only concerns heavier objects, like axions.….”

- is simply wrong. So called “axions” in Standard Model have rest masses mostly ~ [mostly] 10-12 - [rarely] 10-6, eV; nonetheless in mainstream physics, including in top journals, indeed there exist rather numerous publications, where the authors discover that axions can be dark mater particles.

Wolfgang Konle

“…Sergey Shevchenko [SS quote] "...it is written that fundamental Forces charges constantly and always radiate their mediators, i.e. the Forces’ fields"[end quote]

Somewhere this may be written. But nevertheless it is wrong.….”

- you too truncated the SS quote above, really it should be as

“….in mainstream physics classical and quantum electrodynamicses textbooks in this case quite evidently correctly it is written that ….”,

- and, again, that in the mainstream is quite correct, since that really happens in Matter.

While that

“….. All force fields are located with its source in the inertial reference system of their source. This intrinsically means that they are co-moving with their source.

In this situation it is obvious that the field source does not need to do anything to maintain its fields.……”

- looks as too strange physically claim. Really practically everything in Matter, including particles/bodies, etc. and their fundamental Forces charges, move somewhere in 3D space with some velocities; including in inertial reference frames, where some particles, bodies, etc., and so their charges can co-move with the frame, and so are at rest in such frames,

- but that by no means prohibits for other particles, bodies, etc., and their charges, to move in such frames. And that, of course, really happens, while all – the at rest and the moving – charges constantly and always radiate, say, Electric Force mediators/fields,

- though a bit differently – moving charges’ mediators obtain additional angular momentums, and so the mediators partially interact by that in the mainstream is named “Magnetic Force”, which really isn’t a Force, so, say, any this “Force” charges “magnetic monopolies” really cannot exist, etc.

For the readers who really want to understand what is Gravity [Electric, Nuclear] Force, and what utmost scientifically rationally can be “dark matter” particles, more see the pointed above SS posts and links in the posts, more concretely about what can be dark matter see SS&VT Planck scale initial cosmological model in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physicssection 6. “Cosmology”.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko "Really practically everything in Matter, including particles/bodies, etc. and their fundamental Forces charges, move somewhere in 3D space with some velocities; including in inertial reference frames, where some particles, bodies, etc., and so their charges can co-move with the frame, and so are at rest in such frames"

Let me abbreviate this statement and use my own words.

"Really practically everything in Matter, including force fields, move somewhere in 3D space with some velocities. In its inertial reference system any moving entity is at rest."

The only difference between your and my statement is, that you did not include "force fields" in the list of moving entities.

But it should be obvious that when in an inertial reference system everything is at rest, this also includes the force fields, which belong to the sources at rest.

We then see that a field source does not need to do anything to maintain their force field in their inertial rest frame. The story about "mediators" is then revealed as a chimera.

Wolfgang Konle,

the absolute speed does not depend on the direction. They will fly in all kind of directions.

Try to solve the Dirac equation yourself. It is not easy. There are pitfalls.

Sergey Shevchenko,

the axion was just an example of dark matter. The searches cover up all kind of objects, also heavy stuff.

I have only found one paper that claims to see an indication of axions. However it was not significant as I noted in my third book.

Hans Gennow,

“…the axion was just an example of dark matter. ….I have only found one paper that claims to see an indication of axions….”

- see, say, reDzennn comments to more examples with “axions dark matter” that phys.org promoted

https://phys.org/news/2024-02-explosive-axion-stars-dark.html

https://phys.org/news/2024-03-galileo-scientists-method-dark.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-pulsars-dark.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-pulsars-key-dark.html

https://phys.org/news/2024-03-dark-stars-reveal.html, and

https://phys.org/news/2023-09-explore-theorized-dark-photons.html, though

At that in bottom of every phys.org article there is section “Related stories” where similar papers are pointed; but among of which never there are any articles/papers with reDzennn comments…

Wolfgang Konle,

I can only next time to say you, that in any thread practically always only one SS post/day can appear, so readers have at least a day to read and to attempt to understand what is in the posts; while you write comments to SS posts practically immediately. And so seems don’t remember what in the posts are written. So a CommNet to your

“…Let me abbreviate this statement and use my own words….

….Really practically everything in Matter, including force fields, move somewhere in 3D space with some velocities. In its inertial reference system any moving entity is at rest….it should be obvious that when in an inertial reference system everything is at rest, this also includes the force fields, which belong to the sources at rest.

We then see that a field source does not need to do anything to maintain their force field in their inertial rest frame. The story about "mediators" is then revealed as a chimera.….”

- in the last SS post after the “abbreviated” SS post passage it is quite clearly for everybody, even non-physicist, written that existence in any frame of some particles, bodies, etc. that are at 3D space in the frame by no means prohibits for other particles, bodies, etc., and their charges, to move in such frames. And that, of course, really happens, while all – the at rest and the moving – charges constantly and always radiate, say, Electric Force mediators/fields,

- etc. in the post. Can you understand that?

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko "And that, of course, really happens, while all – the at rest and the moving – charges constantly and always radiate, say, Electric Force mediators/fields,"

Focus on the charges at rest in their inertial reference frame. Their electric fields are at rest as well. This means that from the field sources also at rest, no radiative action is necessary to maintain their fields at rest.

Rodney Bartlett,

The extra mass is called dark matter whose presence has been indirectly confirmed via observations. The good news is that laws of gravity namely those of Einstein's general relativity have already predicted the existence of dark matter mainly through gravitational lensing and the expansion of the Universe. In this sense consequently,there is no need to change the laws of gravity since there is extra mass in the Universe.

Hans Gennow "They will fly in all kind of directions."

Particle/particle interactions immediately destroy a unique velocity distribution. Even if the particles in the moment of pair building, initially all have the same velocity, collisions destroy that uniqueness.

No, we do not have to change gravity law, but to change the meaning of it. There cannot be any force moving between 2 bodies. Instead forces are emerging inside matter due to the ether.

John-Erik Persson > "No, we do not have to change gravity law, but to change the meaning of it.

No, We have to change both (Newton's universal attraction) gravity law and to change the meaning of gravity itself!! GRAVITY is a dialectical CONTRADICTION like any other EXISTING things and processes in the universe. There is no ONE-SIDED UNIVERSALITY in the UNIVERSE; but only the CONTRADICTION of the "UNITY of the OPPOSITES"1 There is now a NEW (dialectical) EQUATION, replacing Newton's gravitational potential; which eliminates the need for "Dark Matter" and all other nonsense of Newtonian-Einstenian theoretical physics and cosmology!

The crisis in modern theoretical physics and cosmology and the root of all cosmic fictions - "Big Bang", dark/black cosmic monsters etc., lies in Newton's one-sided theory of universal gravitational attraction (valid only on or near a cosmic body) and his gift of the "First Impulse" from GOD!

Newton's theory was busted long ago by Leibniz and others; but the powerful (ruling-class aligned) official science and the Vatican help to continue its miserable existence. Please see the following two references:

"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas": Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

"Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's Metaphysics to Einstein's Theology!": Article Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's M...

Abdul Malek

I regard gravity as a result of the absorption of ether particles by matter. This means my gravity stands on a solid base. You did not read the attachment I sent to you. You have no such a solid physical base in your contribution.

Wolfgang Konle,

particles cannot interact before they have been created. That is the moment I am talking about.

Hans Gennow "That is the moment I am talking about."

Are you assuming that all particles are created at the same instant? And you are just considering that instant, with a duration less than a picosecond?

Wolfgang Konle,

I just said that a particle that has not yet been created cannot collide. It must exist. It took sime time before all particles were created. As I have noted it took up to an hour before everything had been created. All the cores of the galaxies, that is. As long as they build up particles are created.

Hans Gennow "As I have noted it took up to an hour before everything had been created. All the cores of the galaxies, that is. As long as they build up particles are created."

Particles only can be created together with their anti-particles. This kind of particle creation cannot generate galaxies.

Wolfgang Konle,

the particles created comes together with their antiparticles, in pairs.

Paricles and antiparticles will to a large extend annihilate, but the rest will get separated. This means there will be regions of matter as well as antimatter. A neighbouring star could be made of antimatter! So, we should be a bit careful if we go to another planet in such a solar system.

The "gravity" effects concept should be changed to one that is simpler and more inclusive of many other phenomena such Planet 9, rotation curves, periodic rotation curves, asymmetric RCs, etc. Somewhat like John-Erik Persson - an ether/plenum whose gradient causes a force on matter and whose wave travels much faster than light (van Flandern and to account for the orbit of planets).

The summary is about a model (the STOE) that suggests there is only one (1) force in the universe - the gradient of the plenum (an aether with specific properties - the term "aether" encompasses many different models). The summary paper lists many references where the model is compared to observation and where predictions are made and found. But, the summary is a bit lean on details which are found in the papers.

I'm making a series of videos. The first is referenced below. The next is nearly done and is STOE Cosmology which requires several of the concepts in the first video. After that is planned videos on galaxy anomalies explained in the STOE, a video on the solar system scale anomalies - Pioneer Anomaly (with the connection to galaxy redshift) and the Planet 9 observations.

One problem which aether models generally lack is an experiment that shows the aether/plenum exists. The things actually detected in measuring instruments are particles which the aether only directs. I suggest the transparent mask experiment (in the video) does not reject (proves?) the existence of the aether/plenum.

SUMMARY

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344442808_Scalar_Theory_of_Everything_STOE_unites_the_big_the_small_and_the_four_forces_GUT_by_extending_Newton's_model?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InF1ZXN0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InByb2ZpbGUiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJwcm9maWxlIiwicG9zaXRpb24iOiJwYWdlQ29udGVudCJ9fQ

STOE on CNPS Intro, the small, photon interference, & maxwell's Equations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtbSroyJ4lU

STOE cosmology, galaxy redshift, Microwave background temperature

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxoUAlek_9Q

John Hodge

• I have not said that anything can move faster than light.
• There are not any light particles.
• There are light waves.
• Yes, Pioneer anomaly is caused by ether wind radial to Earth.
• Yes, cosmological red shift is caused by ether wind radial to very large objects.

Abdul Malek

I regard Newton's law as an approximation. A better description of gravity is found by integrating density over volume. You can see details in the attachment.

Hans Gennow "This means there will be regions of matter as well as antimatter."

You are joking. We do not observe annihilation events in the universe.

Recent research has proven that pair building and annihilation works to 100%. Otherwise it would cause a charge imbalance.

John-Erik Persson

• faster than light (FTL) - you did NOT say - I did. FTL needed for entanglement and the observation of planets. Your model may benifit from ether waves travel FTL.
• light particles- again NOT you - I showed how photons (light particles) can cause interference AND the transparent mask experiment which rejects wave models of light.
• light wave models rejected, or they need to explain the transparent mask experiment.
• Pioneer Anomaly??? No. I said "Planet 9" the not yet found big planet thought to cause the TNO orbits. STOE says it's the same as what causes flat rotation curves - ether (plenum) gradient. BOTH caused by ether gradient from the source at the center of our Galaxy.
• Pioneer Anomaly (PA) caused by ether gradient from planets and Source on the signal of the spacecraft - accounts for all 10 of the observed characteristics of the PA, not just the one characteristic all other theories (theories which fail the explain the other 9 characteristics). Unfortunately, the test that was originally scheduled to test the PA theory was omitted from the Horizon program (I wonder why? It would have been conclusive).
• Well, maybe. But I say "gradient" rather than "wind".
• Read your paper "Reality instead of ...." In STOE. ether/plenum density causes change in speed of light which explains MMX. see video for replacing relativity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmIF45KSdaQ.

John-Erik Persson : You are hooked on to good old Fatio, my friend! Do you think that everything in physics and cosmology stopped after Newton and Fatio?

Please read the references cited above to see what preceded and what followed Newton and Fatio!! Aether is alive and kicking, but as a dynamic quantum form of virtual matter/antimatter particle pairs; popping in and out of existence as Hegel's ontological contradiction "Being-Nothing". A resolution of this eternal contradiction through infinite discrete steps of "Becoming", is behind the "coming into being and the passing out of existence", the evolution of the phenomenology of this infinite eternal and the ever-changing universe, mediated by dialectical chance and necessity!

Also if you like, you can know the same thing about Albert Einstein, in the following new RG question: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Am_I_the_Only_One_Who_Sees_the_Virtual_Emperor_of_Global_Physics_Stand_Naked_in_Spite_of_Frenetic_Efforts_to_Cover_Him_up_with_Big_Dark_Black_Robes

Abdul Malek

that everything in physics and cosmology stopped after Newton and Fatio?

Abdul

You are missing the point by not separating Newton and Fatio. Newton made the mistake of abolishing a good idea from Fatio that was giving a mechanical model for gravity. No aberration in gravity was explained by the fact that energy interchange between ether and matter is by absorption of ether particles and NOT by particles COLLIDING with matter.

I am not talking about existential questions.

John-Erik Persson

Gravity has nothing to do with a particle exchange or absorption. It is caused by the energy density of gravitational fields, proportional to the field strength squared.

The same mechanism is reponsible for all forces, force fields exert on objects, which contribute to the force fields.

Particle absorption would lead to a time dependency of properties which have been proven to be constant.

John-Erik Persson : In addition to the more recent articles cited above in my comments, even a (now dated) quantum-dialectics based article about gravitation is better than this nonsense written and spoken about "dark" matter, Newtonian, Einsteinian nonsense about gravity!

"Gravity – An Intrinsic Property of Matter! A Qualitative Graviton-Orbital-Band Theory": Article Gravity – An Intrinsic Property of Matter! A Qualitative Gra...

Abdul Malek "It isassumed that the gravitons exist as a cloud (or a standing wave) around elementary particles inquantized orbitals in loop-like band superstructure (like electrons in an atom) and can extend overlong ranges in the empty space around the particle center. This speculative idea was inspired by therecent report [1] about the possibility of the existence of “General relativistic boson stars” and arelated highly speculative idea that dark matter could be in the form of a single giant boson star in which galaxies are embedded (PDF) Gravity – An Intrinsic Property of Matter! A Qualitative Graviton-Orbital-Band Theory. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326534944_Gravity_-_An_Intrinsic_Property_of_Matter_A_Qualitative_Graviton-Orbital-Band_Theory [accessed Jun 18 2024].

Is "speculation" an authorized tool in dialectics? Are theses speculations supporting or denying the particle phantasies of John-Erik Persson ?