The information I have is that GR requires dark matter to be present to explain how masses in a galaxy are held together.
In First Motion, there is not such requirement because the collective action is based -first- on their collective motion, set in place during the materialization process itself.
In effect, that is like 200 ice skaters forming a group of skaters, yet each individual skater is doing the work. Naturally, there will be group expressions, but the essence is that each moves on their own accord.
That means that Sun, Earth, and Moon, are all moving at the same fastest speed through space, like a truck, car, and motorcycle on one and the same freeway at the same speed in the same direction.
The Sun's gravity is then secondary, not prime, in this image.
Same for the 100 billion masses in the Milky Way, all moving each on their own accord first, and only second they are involved in the gravitational outcomes we also witness.
Do you consider it possible that GR is incorrect because the model is not accurate enough, and overstates the need for gravity for a galaxy?
Excellent reply, Preston, and now I want more : - )
What is your view on matter?
1/ Did it derive from Nothing?
2/ Did it derive from all that already was before?
3/ Did it derive from parts of all that was already before?
I'm with option #3. As such, immaterial energy would be part of our reality, but it need not be much of a player.
No worries if you want to leave it at the answer you gave already.
Thank you for your reply. This provided me greater understanding of the current standing.
All current theories of the nature of gravity (either Newtonian, Einsteinian or whomsoever-ian) require the existence of "dark matter" in galaxies to explain how they can hold their outer regions together, despite those regions having a rotational velocity too fast to be constrained by the mass of the visible matter in the galaxy.
That does NOT mean that "dark matter" is something weird, as most cosmologists prefer to believe. It could simply be ordinary matter in a form that makes it very hard to observe. The problem is that if it IS ordinary matter in such a form, then it will take decades to develop the technology to prove that, and no one will win Nobel or other prizes for proving such a banal result. So people intent on working on the problem invented "weird" dark matter, in the hope that it might be possible to prove its existence within their lifetime (or better yet their career), give them an excuse to publish (almost entirely worthless) papers, and if they're incredibly lucky, become famous (at least in the astronomical community). My personal opinion is that there is no reason to believe in weird dark matter, but that the existence of SOME kind of currently unobservable mass IS required to explain the observations. (For a webpage devoted to the history of "dark matter", intended for the students I taught before I retired, see "Dark Matter In Galaxies", at https://cseligman.com/text/galaxies/dark.htm )
“…Does GR require dark matter to be present to hold a galaxy together? Would First Motion be an improvement? ..Do you consider it possible that GR is incorrect because the model is not accurate enough, and overstates the need for gravity for a galaxy? …..”
- there is no essential problems in GR or Newton Gravity, with “dark matter” – and just the “dark matter effect” is observed because of that description of the peripheral stars motions in galaxies can be adequate to the observations if in the GR/Newtonian equations of the motion some “dark matter haloes” are including, provided that the haloes masses are few times larger than the visible matter mass.
Real physical problem so in this case is are the theories valid in this case or not, in 2-nd case – what can be a “true Gravity theory”? - and now there exist a few “MOND theories”, however these theories look as quite ad hoc ones, since have no any applications in physics besides the dark matter problem..
Though existence of dark matter really looks as quite possible – see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale initial cosmological model in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics , section “Cosmology” – that are primary particles that were created on first step of observed matter creation, which have completely symmetric charge [gravitational mass] of completely symmetric fundamental Nature Gravity force,
- and so when at interactions of a part of the primary [it seems Planck mass particles] only the observed now particles were created without creation of antiparticles, other part now compose the dark matter and, rather probably, the central compact objects in SMBH.
Cheers
Thank you, Sergey, for that answer.
In First Motion model, there is no need for dark matter, there is no need for ether, there is no need for spacetime.
When 200 ice skaters are skating in a group on the same frozen canal, at the same speed, same time, same direction, then we think correctly that this is a group.
However, they are not skating on group power. Each skater is skating by him or herself.
Same for the masses in a galaxy. Yes, they are a group, but, No, each is not powered by the group.
The initial push of the Big Bang is ongoing. Each mass all by itself is moving at the same speed in the same direction as the galaxy. Only then do we have the additional gravitational motions.
First Motion: Straight line: No gravity involved.
Second Motion: Circling of masses in a galaxy. Gravity applicable.
Third Motion: Planets revolving around star. Gravity applicable.
Fourth Motion: Planets spinning, moons in tow. Gravity applicable.
There is no gravity missing in First Motion. All known gravity is all the gravity we need to explain the results.
--
Sergey Shevchenko
Thank you for your good reply. I appreciate it much.
- Badges
- Science topic