Starship Asterisk*

My explanation for the dark energy is ANTIGRAVITY caused by gravitational bodies themselves via equalization of the bending of space-time in the opposite way by the law of space-time equalization. Everything that is within close proximity to gravitational objects are pulled to this object, like stars in galaxies to the black whole in their center, and like galaxies within galaxy clusters, and like clusters of galaxies in superclusters. But objects outside the gravitational field are within the opposite bending of space-time, in the ANTIGRAVITATIONAL field, meaning space-time is bended in an opposite way, in order to fulfill the law of equalization of the bending of space-time. The forces of ANTIGRAVITY are very complex and interwoven with the forces of gravity. ANTIGRAVITY might be stronger, the farer an object is to the gravitational object, thus explaining the accelerated expansion of the universe.

What proves this hypothesis, what does it disprove?

Eternity wrote:My explanation for the dark energy is ANTIGRAVITY caused by gravitational bodies themselves via equalization of the bending of space-time in the opposite way by the law of space-time equalization. Everything that is within close proximity to gravitational objects are pulled to this object, like stars in galaxies to the black whole in their center, and like galaxies within galaxy clusters, and like clusters of galaxies in superclusters. But objects outside the gravitational field are within the opposite bending of space-time, in the ANTIGRAVITATIONAL field, meaning space-time is bended in an opposite way, in order to fulfill the law of equalization of the bending of space-time. The forces of ANTIGRAVITY are very complex and interwoven with the forces of gravity. ANTIGRAVITY might be stronger, the farer an object is to the gravitational object, thus explaining the accelerated expansion of the universe.

What proves this hypothesis, what does it disprove?

Just one little problem with your hypotheses, There is no such word as farer.

Mark

Eternity wrote:What proves this hypothesis, what does it disprove?

Nothing to either. If you can't frame the theory in a rigorous mathematical way, consistent with existing theory, there's really no way to develop a test. And without testability, you really have nothing scientific, just pure speculation.

(There are theories of dark energy that treat it as a kind of antigravity, fully within the framework of an extended GR.)

Eternity,
i remember from astronomy classes i had couple of years ago that there are four fundamental forces in the universe: "Strong Interaction", Weak Interaction", "Electromagnetism" & "Gravitation".
from Strong Interaction to Gravitation, their magnitude lessen but their range increase. the Gravitation & Electromagnetism don't end anywhere.
gravitation is a function of distance and even in furthest points of the universe you can find earth's gravitational waves. so there is no boundary for a gravitational field to look for anti-gravity outside of.
besides, when gravitation is a result of mass so we so should look for an anti-mass to blame for anti-gravity, which is not yet discovered.

Hi,
I tend to look for specific sources to generate the desired effect. That can lead to a way to verify the idea.
The only source I've heard of that generates anti-matter is near the jets generated off the poles of a black-hole.
Apparently the accretion disk falling in to it does not catch everything. Some material slips to the poles and collides
so forcefully it creates positrons that combine with electrons to generate gamma-rays, if I rememeber it
properly.

Sincerely, Gregory D. MELLOTT

gmellott wrote:I tend to look for specific sources to generate the desired effect. That can lead to a way to verify the idea.
The only source I've heard of that generates anti-matter is near the jets generated off the poles of a black-hole.
Apparently the accretion disk falling in to it does not catch everything. Some material slips to the poles and collides
so forcefully it creates positrons that combine with electrons to generate gamma-rays, if I rememeber it
properly.

Are you proposing some sort of connection between dark energy and antimatter? I don't know of any current theory that relates the two.

Amir H Taheri suggested one should look for anti-matter by relating it to anti-gravity.

Personally, I have a hard time with a ubiqutious dark energy, or matter, that is not specifically
detailed by a theory giving it a 'means' for it to exist also. I hear there is in some theories
a particle they are saying that exists that is apparently next impossible to detect, as it hardly
interacts with anything material, accept by gravity apparently.

Have anyone ever studied a theory for this universes creation via a relativistic humongous
(weight wise) black-hole colliding in an old, nearly energyless universe, possibly with smaller
black-holes scattered in its midst?

Sincerely, Gregory D. MELLOTT

gmellott wrote:Personally, I have a hard time with a ubiqutious dark energy, or matter, that is not specifically
detailed by a theory giving it a 'means' for it to exist also. I hear there is in some theories
a particle they are saying that exists that is apparently next impossible to detect, as it hardly
interacts with anything material, accept by gravity apparently.

I think you are confusing dark energy and dark matter. They are completely different things.

Hi again,
No, I got the idea. The standard theory holds that Dark Energy is the main thing the universe is made of(about 70%), next comes Dark Matter(about 20%), normal 'visible' matter the least.

There are those saying that is there was just more gravity (any source) in the extremities of the galaxies that it would solve much of the concern one lady's
observation of orbital speeds in galaxies generated. I'm wondering if something like a greater abundance of noble gases that would tend to not chemically
bond and move away from heat sources to the outer parts of the galaxies would solve some of the problem.
Sincerely, Gregory D. MELLOTT

i didn't relate Dark Energy with anti-matterNegative mass. i just said if Eternity is trying to relate Dark Energy to anti-Gravity, he should think of anti-matterNegative mass. cuz anti-gravity wouldn't come out of nothing; it's not like Light & Darkness (where there isn't any light it's called darkness) because anti-Gravity is a kinda force & we cannot say anti-Gravity exist where Gravity does not.

gmellott wrote:I'm wondering if something like a greater abundance of noble gases that would tend to not chemically
bond and move away from heat sources to the outer parts of the galaxies would solve some of the problem.

i didn't understand. how could this explain the problem?
do you mean that noble gases cause gravitation in the outer parts of the galaxy without being observed? that's interesting if you mean so, i got no idea about it though.

Amir wrote:i didn't relate Dark Energy with anti-matter. i just said if Eternity is trying to relate Dark Energy to anti-Gravity, he should think of anti-matter. cuz anti-gravity wouldn't come out of nothing; it's not like Light & Darkness (where there isn't any light it's called darkness) because anti-Gravity is a kinda force & we cannot say anti-Gravity exist where Gravity does not.

I don't think that antimatter has any relevance to a hypothetical antigravity. Antimatter is as well understood as regular matter. Its gravitational effects are the same as regular matter, and are determined (as you would expect) by mass. If antigravity exists, the place to look is in the structure of space itself (which is how dark energy is often seen), or in a property of ordinary matter that is parallel to its normal gravitational properties (e.g. a change in gravitational effects with distance).

Chris Peterson wrote:I don't think that antimatter has any relevance to a hypothetical antigravity.

yes, Chris you're right. actually i made a BIG mistake: all over the page, wherever i said anti-Matter, i meant Negative Mass! my bad.

noble gases cause gravitation in the outer parts of the galaxy without being observed?

The whole problem with with the study is that if something is cold enough it does not radiate in any form that can be observed. Admitted, since light passes through space it can also indicate the presents of a gas or the likes with a absortion line in the spectrum. But cold material, like what we find in our outer planets and perhaps, the Kepler belt and the Oort cloud are way to collect the material in a way that can no be observed with any of our present tools.

What Dr. Vera Rubin stated on 'Most of Our Universe Is Missing' was that galaxies' stars are moving faster that what would be predicted by a galaxy with most of the
mass in the center. So there must be some gravitational force, likely plain matter in my view, out in the outer regions of the galaxy. Standard theory is adding alot of 'Dark matter' (which technically can be common matter, just not presently definable as to what) to the system to get things to work as they are apparently functioning by what is observable in reality.

gmellott wrote:What Dr. Vera Rubin stated on 'Most of Our Universe Is Missing' was that galaxies' stars are moving faster that what would be predicted by a galaxy with most of the
mass in the center. So there must be some gravitational force, likely plain matter in my view, out in the outer regions of the galaxy. Standard theory is adding alot of 'Dark matter' (which technically can be common matter, just not presently definable as to what) to the system to get things to work as they are apparently functioning by what is observable in reality.

I'm still not sure why you're discussing dark matter in a thread about dark energy.

Yes, it is remotely possible that dark matter is just ordinary matter. But this has been largely ruled out by observations. Ordinary matter would have to be present in huge amounts- much greater than the mass of the galaxies embedded in it- and that would be observable, both by absorptive effects and by re-radiation of the galaxy's energy in IR (and we have very good IR views of galaxies these days). Ordinary matter would interact with the radiation of the galaxy to align itself in a disk along with the visible material, and that would show up as influencing star production, and it would have the wrong distribution for the observed galaxy rotation curves. Non-baryonic matter is a much better fit to both theory and observation.

Dark matter and dark energy... Both being undefined, I digressed.

Has anyone ever studied a theory for this universes creation via a relativistic humongous
(weight wise) black-hole colliding in an old, nearly energyless universe, possibly with smaller
black-holes scattered in its midst?

If you note of such an endeavor I'd greatly appreciate hearing of it. I have to question though the full assurance you provide about being able to see everything that well with infrared. Is there more beyond our Oort Cloud? And while infrared may be able to note some of what cannot be seen, such as through the clouds in out own galaxy; anything warmer will mask that which is cooler rather readily.

gmellott wrote:I have to question though the full assurance you provide about being able to see everything that well with infrared. Is there more beyond our Oort Cloud? And while infrared may be able to note some of what cannot be seen, such as through the clouds in out own galaxy; anything warmer will mask that which is cooler rather readily.

Why do you think that something warm will mask IR sources? Hot objects don't produce much IR. Nearly all of the primary energy sources we see in the Universe have peak outputs at much shorter wavelengths. IR is seen strongly from much cooler sources- primarily dust clouds that absorb short wavelength energy from stars and other sources and re-radiate it in the IR. There is no good way to explain how we could fail to notice dust or molecular clouds around galaxies. Our instruments are perfectly capable of detecting the radiative signature such clouds would possess.

BTW, the rotational behavior of galaxies is far from the only way that we "see" dark matter. Some observations can't be explained by it being ordinary matter at all, especially the observed power spectrum of the CMB.

Another factor that may fool calculations up is the possiblity that a black-hole may not be able to 'generate' all the gravity its mass might allow. This may be due to the fact that gravity must ride on the back of other flows of energy (or of course matter) and that the event horizon will also prevent its escape unless someting is being absorbed by it to give path through it. Then the apparent mass of the black-hole can be much less than its actual mass. There is some evidence I hear that there 'appears' to be a maximum size to mass of black-holes. To me that is actually unlikely. I would say the way to tell if such a effect can happen is to look for something like waves generated in the material gravited to the black-hole that show up from the variability of the apparent gravity gnerated.

The last thing I can think of that also is from black-holes is their abilty to generate energy by making anti-matter and recombining it. This would reduce the total mass in the universe and add energy while also increasing the pressure of 'empty' space with the material it blows into space. There is one notable picture you've likely seen of one galaxy shotting a huge beam of 'stuff' at another near by galaxy. Likely making any life nearly inpossible unless perhaps it lives underground.

If it is much cooler and especially behind a warmer material it would not be notable. Temperature by itself in not a very valid indicator of the presence of a comet like mass of very cold material.

The voyager space crafts flew out of our solar system and may be near the edge of the solar wind influence (as a whole). The atoms that are blown out of the solar system similarly, some may go quite far into space before being attracked back to the sun or influenced by other winds to wander somewhere else or perhaps also gathered up by objects we don't presently think about.

gmellott wrote:If it is much cooler and especially behind a warmer material it would not be notable. Temperature by itself in not a very valid indicator of the presence of a comet like mass of very cold material.

We're talking about a mass surrounding galaxies that is several times greater than what we can see with radiation. If that material were ordinary matter, it would glow in IR. The only way to mask it would be to have a stronger IR source in the same line of sight, and no IR sources are observed around galaxies at all. That is, we would see the masking agent. Nothing can simply make that IR go away.

From what I gather the source of gravity would have to be in the outer part of the obsrvable galaxy, though some perhaps beyond, The speed of the stars noted though suggest that the center of mass apparent to the star must me closer to the center of the galaxy than it is, though not nearly as far way as the center of the galaxy. The graph that Dr. Vera Rubin showed has the speed of the stars increase as they moved away from the center of the galaxy and then it nearly flattened out by the time it reached the edge of the galaxy.

continuing:
The stars' speeds may have been even slowing a bit near the edges of the galaxy. A very flat rate change, though.
As for the seeing in infrared business again. Very cold objects are rather black in the infrared.* Likely the material is of a type that has to be very cold in order to remain collected by the objects that hold it. That almost also assures one that they would have to be very far from a star.
My understanding is, the only way they are now having assurance about the Oort cloud existing is the required trajectory of objects that get knocked out and start falling toward the sun. Actually observation of it is lacking also. At most they may have spotted an object or two beyond Pluto. Kepler belt, as I understand it.

*If one had very high definition and was clever, it might be possible to note the loss of light from objects behind the one desired to be noted. Something like they are now looking for planets very far away. James Webb telescope or the likes may find such a use someday. I wonder about how (potential effecting how long it will work at peak performance) they are going to keep it cool.

So I'm confused. Are we explaining DE or DM?

The hunt "missing mass" is a famous one. Significant dust reservoirs have been observed for decades - indirectly (and maybe controversially) seen by extinction of background objects surrounding galactic clusters, as well as hot X-ray emissions. But Chris' points are sound. Today, new technology and techniques not only continue to support "missing(visible!) mass" is real, but explaining the galactic rotation anomally, and the most observationally consistent cosmology model require that the needed mass DOES exist, and a lot of it (and dust is only a small part of it). It's true, DM is the center of a heated debate. We can see this mass with gravitational lensing (GL), but even that is indirect. So much mass is out there that if it were baryonic (usual matter we know), we would have seen it and identified it by now. Also, the cosmic abundance (CA)of barionic matter is well known. It doesn't make sense to have what would have to be heavy baryons in so much space, and violate the observed CA. It's almost an open and shut case that DM seems exotic no matter how you cut it. WIMPS? Axions? It will be a breakthrough when DM is detected other than using GL. Either we'll make (or not make!) new heavy particles a lab, and/or we'll identify diffuse Gamma ray glows (predicted), or we'll observe something new to point us in a new direction. But simple, baryonic matter hidden from view by some means? That concept has been rooted out to a high degree. The better and harder we look, the more it looks like something else. In any case, we are looking more intensly today than ever have before.

So, what about DE?

gmellott wrote:Very cold objects are rather black in the infrared.* Likely the material is of a type that has to be very cold in order to remain collected by the objects that hold it. That almost also assures one that they would have to be very far from a star.

I really don't see the point you are trying to make. Sometimes you are talking about matter around stars (like the Oort cloud), and other times matter around galaxies (the mass responsible for explaining galactic rotation curves). These are different things.

Cold objects don't produce much IR. But ordinary baryonic matter interacts with electromagnetic radiation. If you put it around a galaxy, it will absorb short wavelength energy from that galaxy, heat up, and radiate IR. We should be able to observe that. Since we don't, it is a strong argument that dark matter is not baryonic. If you're suggesting some sort of exotic baryonic matter that doesn't heat up when exposed to EM... well, that's a lot less tenable than simple non-baryonic matter, which we already know exists and which has a well understood lack of interaction with EM.

My understanding is, the only way they are now having assurance about the Oort cloud existing is the required trajectory of objects that get knocked out and start falling toward the sun. Actually observation of it is lacking also. At most they may have spotted an object or two beyond Pluto. Kepler belt, as I understand it.

What does the Oort cloud have to do with this? Are you suggesting that material like that in the Oort cloud could be unidentified mass? Well, it is already accepted that there is cold baryonic matter that isn't luminous enough to detect. Its existence is allowed for in the ordinary matter part of the Universe's energy budget. But it's nowhere near sufficient to explain all the missing mass. Consider the Oort cloud- the reason we can't observe it is because it's so diffuse- a mass of just a few Earth's (a tiny fraction of the entire Solar System) distributed in a cloud vastly larger than the Solar System. It's too diffuse to see its IR glow, and it's too low mass to have a measurable impact on the orbits of planets. This is very different than the sort of missing mass that must exist around galaxies. If there was enough mass in the Oort cloud to affect planetary orbits, it would have a very obvious IR signature.

I put it to someone on here before I'm sure that dark matter/energy was a simple thing. so simple in fact that someone thought of it before the term dark matter/energy had even been coined or found yet.

take this famous quote for example.

"every action has an equal and opposite reaction."

Gravity pulls things in, so the opposite and equal reaction to this is the pushing of objects apart.





On another note, I litrerally have just thought of this.

You know when you put two magnets together at the wrong ends they push apart? well i assume that almost all of the objects in the universe have a magnetic field? maybe things get pushed apart the same way in which magnets do until they are at a comfortable distance from each other? I think that sounds plausible as well? no?

reading topics like this, I can't help but imagine what would aliens think reading our "papers published in relevant peer-reviewed scientific journals"

p.s. I mean no offence to anyone, we all try to make sense of this world by linking new knowledge to the most relevant bits of our experience, but sometimes we don't see how far it really is

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche wrote:I often skip over steps when I climb — no step forgives me that.