Study plunges standard Theory of Cosmology into Crisis

May 05, 2009

As modern cosmologists rely more and more on the ominous “dark matter” to explain otherwise inexplicable observations, much effort has gone into the detection of this mysterious substance in the last two decades, yet no direct proof could be found that it actually exists. Even if it does exist, dark matter would be unable to reconcile all the current discrepancies between actual measurements and predictions based on theoretical models. Hence the number of physicists questioning the existence of dark matter has been increasing for some time now.

Competing theories of gravitation have already been developed which are independent of this construction. Their only problem is that they conflict with Newton’s theory of gravitation.

“Maybe Newton was indeed wrong”, declares Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University's Argelander-Institut für Astronomie (AIfA). “Although his theory does, in fact, describe the everyday effects of gravity on Earth, things we can see and measure, it is conceivable that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics underlying the force of ”.

This is a problematical hypothesis that has nevertheless gained increasing ground in recent years, especially in Europe.

Two new studies could well lend further support to it. In these studies, Professor Kroupa and his former colleague Dr. Manuel Metz, working in collaboration with Professor Dr. Gerhard Hensler and Dr. Christian Theis from the University of Vienna, and Dr. Helmut Jerjen from the Australian National University, Canberra, have examined so-called “satellite galaxies”. This term is used for dwarf galaxy companions of the Milky Way, some of which contain only a few thousand stars.

According to the best cosmological models, they exist presumably in hundreds around most of the major galaxies. Up to now, however, only 30 such satellites have been observed around the Milky Way, a discrepancy in numbers which is commonly attributed to the fact that the light emitted from the majority of satellite galaxies is so faint they remain invisible.

A detailed study of these stellar agglomerates has revealed some astonishing phenomena: “First of all, there is something unusual about their distribution”, Professor Kroupa explains, “the satellites should be uniformly arranged around their mother galaxy, but this is not what we found“.  More precisely, all classical satellites of the Milky Way - the eleven brightest dwarf galaxies - lie more or less in the same plane, they are forming some sort of a disc in the sky. The research team has also been able to show that most of these satellite galaxies rotate in the same direction around the Milky Way - like the planets revolve around the Sun.

Contradiction upon Contradiction

The physicists do belief that this phenomenon can only be explained if the satellites were created a long time ago through collisions between younger galaxies. “The fragments produced by such an event can form rotating dwarf galaxies”, explains Dr. Metz, who has recently moved across to the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (German Aero-space Center). But there is an interesting catch to this crash theory, “theoretical calculations tell us that the satellites created cannot contain any ”. This assumption, however, stands in contradiction to another observation. “The stars in the satellites we have observed are moving much faster than predicted by the Gravitational Law. If classical physics holds this can only be attributed to the presence of dark matter”, Manuel Metz states.

Or one must assume that some basic fundamental principles of physics have hitherto been incorrectly understood. “The only solution would be to reject Newton´s classical theory of gravitation”, says Pavel Kroupa. “We probably live in a non-Newton universe. If this is true, then our observations could be explained without dark matter”. Such approaches are finding support amongst other research teams in Europe, too.

It would not be the first time that Newton’s theory of gravitation had to be modified over the past hundred years. This became necessary in three special cases: when high velocities are involved (through the Special Theory of Relativity), in the proximity of large masses (through the theory of General Relativity), and on sub-atomic scales (through quantum mechanics).

The deviations detected in the satellite galaxy data support the hypothesis that in space where extremely weak accelerations predominate, a “modified Newton dynamic” must be adopted. This conclusion has far-reaching consequences for fundamental physics in general, and also for cosmological theories. ¬¬Famous astrophysicist Bob Sanders from the University of  Groningen declares: "The authors of this paper make a strong argument. Their result is entirely consistent with the expectations of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), but completely opposite to the predictions of the dark matter hypothesis. Rarely is an observational test so definite."

More information:

Metz, Manuel; Kroupa, Pavel; Theis, Christian; Hensler, Gerhard; Jerjen, Helmut: Did the Milky Way dwarf satellites enter the halo as a group? (The Astrophysical Journal 2009; doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/269)

Metz, Manuel; Kroupa, Pavel; Jerjen, Helmut: Discs of Satellites: the new dwarf spheroidals (Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 2009; doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14489.x)

Source: Bonn University

Explore further: The unifying framework of symmetry reveals properties of a broad range of physical systems

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Trick of the light throws up rarely seen dwarf

Mar 16, 2007

A galaxy long considered to be a giant has turned out to be an optical illusion, with new observations by an astronomer from The Australian National University revealing that the star group is a dwarf.

Solution found for cosmology's great pancake mystery?

May 15, 2005

Scientists from the University of Durham may have solved a decades-old puzzle regarding the distribution of the eleven small satellite galaxies that surround the Milky Way. The Milky Way is not alone. It is surrounded by ...

Dwarf galaxies need dark matter too

Oct 24, 2007

Stars in dwarf spheroidal galaxies behave in a way that suggests the galaxies are utterly dominated by dark matter, University of Michigan astronomers have found.

Recommended for you

What time is it in the universe?

Aug 29, 2014

Flavor Flav knows what time it is. At least he does for Flavor Flav. Even with all his moving and accelerating, with the planet, the solar system, getting on planes, taking elevators, and perhaps even some ...

Watching the structure of glass under pressure

Aug 28, 2014

Glass has many applications that call for different properties, such as resistance to thermal shock or to chemically harsh environments. Glassmakers commonly use additives such as boron oxide to tweak these ...

Inter-dependent networks stress test

Aug 28, 2014

Energy production systems are good examples of complex systems. Their infrastructure equipment requires ancillary sub-systems structured like a network—including water for cooling, transport to supply fuel, and ICT systems ...

Explainer: How does our sun shine?

Aug 28, 2014

What makes our sun shine has been a mystery for most of human history. Given our sun is a star and stars are suns, explaining the source of the sun's energy would help us understand why stars shine. ...

User comments : 58

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MrGrynch
2.4 / 5 (15) May 05, 2009
You dont need to reinvent gravity. Well I suggest we do, but it can both agree with Newtonian and Relativistic views:

http://dx.doi.org....3062146

What is really needed is to embrace the role of electric forces in the plasma state of the universe. As 99.999% plasma, we must stop looking at magnetic fields as distinct objects and ignore the moving charges that MUST create and maintain them. Plasma cosmology is the sanest approach to explaining what we observe, without reinventing gravity, but rather acknowledging forces that are also there, but currently ignored with respect to large-scale structure.

http://www.thunde...home.htm

superhuman
2.3 / 5 (9) May 05, 2009
Good news, I hope we can now bury dark matter next to the luminiferous aether and move on.

We won't understand the Universe until we have a proper theory of matter and by that I mean one which successfully combines quantum mechanics and general relativity.
seanpu
3.7 / 5 (6) May 05, 2009
until we understand what gravity really is we wont understand the universe.
Alexa
May 05, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alexa
May 05, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
lengould100
4.8 / 5 (6) May 05, 2009
Alexa: Still doesn't explain rate of rotation of individual galaxies...
Alexa
May 05, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alexa
May 05, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alexa
May 05, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alexa
May 05, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Nik_2213
3.8 / 5 (4) May 05, 2009
Have they factored in the recent possibility of a population of non-core black holes ?? If non-luminous / not-feeding, those would be hard to spot...
Alexa
May 05, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alexa
May 05, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
yyz
3.3 / 5 (4) May 05, 2009
Sounds like some rah-rah PR announcement playing up the MOND angle. Interesting how no mention is made of the majority of views counter to MOND, as if MOND has to be right because of these studies. Where's the balance?
THEY
2.8 / 5 (9) May 05, 2009
Alexa/Zephir - please give it a break! You are under educated, and born in the wrong century. We are tired of you spamming your pet theory that is so last century!
QubitTamer
3.2 / 5 (10) May 05, 2009
Scientists must keep an open mind to theories like AWT because our current accepted hypotheses are breaking down the more we observe in the universe. So let Alexa keep explaining himself, maybe eventually something he says will be empirically verified and then we'll have to begin to seriously evaluate his postulates. There is no harm in holding opinions and points of view outside of the mainstream.

Copernicus and Galileo certainly weren't conformists...
Crackpot
1 / 5 (3) May 05, 2009
I agree with "superhuman" that we won't understand the Universe until we have a proper theory of matter, but I'm sceptical to general relativity and to how quantum mechanics is interpreted.

My own hypothesis on elementary particles suggests a two-dimensional gravitational field (http://classicala...ot.com). If only a small excess of these particles is more or less aligned, could that explain the "disc formations" in space?
Slotin
2.3 / 5 (3) May 05, 2009
Alizee
May 05, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 05, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
holoman
3 / 5 (2) May 05, 2009
So where does anti-matter fit in to the
scheme of gravity, dark matter, and dark energy ?
Alizee
May 05, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
am_Unition
4 / 5 (3) May 05, 2009
So where does anti-matter fit in to the

scheme of gravity, dark matter, and dark energy ?


We have found no evidence of abundant anti-matter outside from man-made particle collisions anywhere in the universe. This poses another serious problem in cosmology, as equal amounts of matter and anti-matter are produced in accelerator collisions. So what "tipped the scales" in favor of "regular" matter?

We have work to do, i.e. get a physics degree.
Alizee
May 05, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 05, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 05, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 05, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
galoot
3.4 / 5 (5) May 05, 2009
Alizee/Alexa....if only a black hole would swallow interminable comments
Shootist
4.4 / 5 (7) May 05, 2009
babelfish must be down.

Maybe somebody can start discussing Burkhard Heim, at least his theories offer something substantial, if obtruse?

Or Sir Fred's Continuous Creation model?

Or Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision?

Please I beg of you. This is worse than reading all about Anthropomorphic Global Warming.

there is no evidence that "the volume of matter" increases due to an expanding universe.
no one knows why Pioneer exhibits its anomaly, but the simplist explanation is usually correct.
tiny primordial black holes evaporated a long long time ago.
Strange matter will not be created at LHC
There is no ether.
Plasma is well known.
The curvature of space-time is NOT at its maximum at the surface of a body.
Dwarf galaxies aren't "evaporating".
Antigravity has not been observed.
There is plenty of antimatter (the Shapely Center practically sings at 511 GeV).
Gravity is a manifestation of the curvature of space-time.
General Relativity is perhaps the most successful theory of all time and its values test to beyond the accuracy of any testing method yet tried. Even when Einstein was wrong, it turns out he was Right (cosmological constant).

Wolkenkuckuckland
Shootist
5 / 5 (3) May 05, 2009
Alexa/Zephir - please give it a break! You are under educated, and born in the wrong century. We are tired of you spamming your pet theory that is so last century!


Er, century before last, eh?
Alexa
1.8 / 5 (5) May 06, 2009
..no evidence that "the volume of matter" increases due to an expanding universe..
I couldn't said that, because the reason is a bit complex, IMO. But how would you comment the situation, when iridium meter prototype expands in size, for example? http://www.physor...s64.html
Alexa
2.3 / 5 (6) May 06, 2009
..Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision..
Some ideas of Velikovsky were proven correct: for example the emission of radio waves by Jupiter was confirmed recently - after forty years, when Velikovski has predicted it. This doesn't mean, everything was correct in Velikovski books by the same way, like not all mainstream cosmological theories are correct. What if dark matter doesn't contain any WIMPs, for example? Whole hundreds of peer-reviewed publications will become wrong in this moment. In my opinion, this is a normal process of human knowledge development.
Alexa
1.8 / 5 (5) May 06, 2009
..Strange matter will not be created at LHC..
The strange and top quarks are produced regularly. Concerning the strangelets, maybe they're were observed on Tevatron already - at least we can read some articles about it in mainstream press. Why we should belive just You, after then?

http://physicswor...ws/36514
http://physicswor...rint/443
Alexa
1.7 / 5 (6) May 06, 2009
..there is no ether..
The absence of Aether was decided before one hundred years from absence of reference frame for light spreading in vacuum. But when observing some environment by its own waves, the reference frame is always missing and nothing strange is about. For example, water surface appears like empty space from surface water waves perspective - how we could expect the absolute frame for light spreading in vacuum via light mediated observation, after then?

In this case, a trivial logical mistake in deduction has lead to false refusal of Aether concept, while ignoring the wave character of light, the zero point energy (the Brownian motion of atoms and particles in Aether environment) and many other significant evidences. In my opinion, at the case of Aether the mainstream physics is trolling religiously even more, then Holy Church with heliocentric model at Galileo times, because it refuses direct evidence, whereas Holy Church just asked for it - which is a bit striking conclusion...

http://aetherwave...day.html
Alexa
1.7 / 5 (6) May 06, 2009
..tiny primordial black holes evaporated a long long time ago..
Experimental evidence of AWT is not dependent to tiny primordial black holes observations. You should tell this to string theorists, not me...

http://www.usatod...es_x.htm

I just pointed out the similarity of miniblack holes and strangelet concept, to which WIMPs are related. In my opinion, without strangelets we cannot have no WIMPs in stable state, which falsifies whole dark matter theory based on WIMPs.
Alexa
1.8 / 5 (5) May 06, 2009
..the curvature of space-time is NOT at its maximum at the surface of a body...
Gravity force/acceleration is proportional to curvature of space-time - or not? How is it possible after then, the highest gravity force/acceleration is just at the Earth surface? You should repair your basic physics knowledge, in my opinion..

Of course, this fact doesn't falsify Schwarzschild solution conclusively - but it makes its establishing a bit problematic in finite time during Universe age.
Alexa
1.8 / 5 (5) May 06, 2009
..dwarf galaxies aren't "evaporating"...
at the case of Milky Way neighorhood, most of dwarf galaxies are generally very old (10 GYrs) remnants of ancient galaxies, which have lost their matter by radiative evaporation and tidal forces of Milky Way. They're composed of stars with a metallicity of [Fe/H] about 1.0, so we can call them a "cosmic fossils".

http://www.space....104.html

Frankly - I'm not very sure, you're competent to this way of discussion.
superhuman
3 / 5 (2) May 06, 2009
The absence of Aether was decided before one hundred years from absence of reference frame for light spreading in vacuum. But when observing some environment by its own waves, the reference frame is always missing and nothing strange is about. For example, water surface appears like empty space from surface water waves perspective - how we could expect the absolute frame for light spreading in vacuum via light mediated observation, after then?

You keep repeating this claiming MM is wrong but your explanation makes no sense, it is possible to observe the movement of the medium with waves propagating in it. Imagine two solitons moving in the same direction on the surface of water with constant velocity, if one of them somehow manages to generate a normal circular wavefront which propagates in all directions with a constant speed (higher then soliton speed) the time required for this wavefront to reach the second soliton depends on the speed of solitons relative to the water medium which serves as a reference frame. Since such effect is not present in the case of light this proves there is no aether.
Alexa
2 / 5 (4) May 06, 2009
.. it is possible to observe the movement of the medium with waves propagating in it..
Yep, but with another, usually much faster waves. When you're observing a solitons at the water surface by using of light wave, it's a quite different situation, then the observation of photon pair in vacuum with light waves, simply because in vacuum only single kind of energy wave is present.

Whereas at the water surface we have a pair of waves: the surface wave, which are subject of observation, and the light waves, which are mean of observation. It's quite inconsistent arrangement, don't you think? So you cannot expect results consistent with classical wave mechanics - despite the system remains fully "Newtonian".

Try to imagine the result, which you would observe, if we could use only the surface waves for observation of solitons - i.e. by the same way, in which we are using the light waves for observation of photon spreading in vacuum...


I'm not claiming, MM is wrong - its result is just fully consistent with the above situation. Of you should use clock, which are based on surface soliton spreading even at the water surface to remain fully consistent with vacuum experiments.
omatumr
1 / 5 (6) May 06, 2009
COSMOLOGY HAS LONG BEEN IN A CRISIS!

Cosmologists are just slow learners. They alone believed all of their nonsense.

Stars are not balls of Hydrogen. H-fusion is not the primary energy source of the Sun or the cosmos. Solar neutrinos do not oscillate away, violating the most basic conservation laws, to save their obsolete model of the Sun as a ball of Hydrogen!

The Sun and other stars emit Hydrogen, an exhaust gas from the stellar engine (neutron-emission and neutron-decay) near the compact nuclear core.

For very brief summaries of experimental observations that falsify the Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun, see:

"The origin, composition, and energy source for the Sun," Abstract 1041, 32nd Lunar & Planetary Science Conference, Houston, TX, 12-16 March 2001
http://arxiv.org/.../0411255

"Solar abundance of elements from neutron-capture cross sections," Abstract 1033, 36th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Houston, TX, 14-18 March 2005
http://arxiv.org/.../0412502

For an easy read of rational cosmology, see "The Virtue of Heresy: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer" by Hilton Ratcliffe.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor
Nuclear & Space Sciences
Former NASA PI for Apollo
http://www.omatumr.com

Alexa
1.7 / 5 (6) May 06, 2009
..Cosmologists are just slow learners..
This is because high energy physics - the cosmology in particilar - is based on incredibly noisy and fuzzy data. Therefore the absence of common sense becomes rather critical factor of further development here...

Scientists as a whole doesn't differ from ordinary people so much: despite the number of formal models and pile of math, the won't accept theories, until they cannot understand them at the nonformal logic level. Which is good for AWT...

Your model, where most of energy is produced by process releasing antineutrinos contradicts the experimental data, in which currently most accurate upper limit on the solar antineutrino/neutrino flux ratio is lower then 1.7% with 90% confidence range.
Shootist
3 / 5 (2) May 06, 2009
..Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision..
Some ideas of Velikovsky were proven correct: for example the emission of radio waves by Jupiter was confirmed recently - after forty years, when Velikovski has predicted it. This doesn't mean, everything was correct in Velikovski books by the same way, like not all mainstream cosmological theories are correct. What if dark matter doesn't contain any WIMPs, for example? Whole hundreds of peer-reviewed publications will become wrong in this moment. In my opinion, this is a normal process of human knowledge development.




I never said Velikovski was wrong about anything. I just mentioned him because his theories are more compelling than some of the arguments made here.



We've known, at least since the 60's, that Jupiter produces more energy than it receives from outside sources and that, in the radio spectrum. Not all that recent, IMHO. Sir Arthur even mentions such in 2001, A Space Odyssey ca. 1968.
Shootist
1 / 5 (1) May 06, 2009
No strangelets. No Higgs boson, either. Wait and see. :)
superhuman
3.7 / 5 (3) May 06, 2009
Try to imagine the result, which you would observe, if we could use only the surface waves for observation of solitons - i.e. by the same way, in which we are using the light waves for observation of photon spreading in vacuum...


But this is what I am talking about - using only water surface waves, the time needed for the surface wave generated by the first soliton to reach the second soliton depends on the speed with which solitons move relative to the water reference frame.

The reason why we can draw conclusions from MM experiment about the reference movement is that we have two kinds of waves which move with different speeds through the medium - light waves and matter waves, we know matter waves move slower then light waves and this is all that matters (even if matter and light are made of the same fundamental constituent it does not change anything).

In other words if light is a vibration of aether then an observer (a material object) moving relative to the aether should experience a different speed of light then an observer stationary relative to the aether, there is no way around this simple conclusion. Aether medium is incompatible with special relativity.
Slotin
2 / 5 (4) May 06, 2009
..depends on the speed with which solitons move relative to the water reference frame...
As I explained you already, from perspective of surface waves the water surface appears always like void, empty space. Just because the particles of water surface are serving as a medium for surface wave spreading, they cannot serve as a subject of observation just with these waves. No pin-point object can serve both as a mean, both as a subject of the same observation at the same moment. No pinpoint object can be inside and outside of the same observation at the same moment.

And because water surface can never ever be seen with surface waves, then every notion of surface motion or reference frame becomes simply oxymoron: if something cannot be seen, it simply cannot exist or move in observable way, to serve as a reference frame for surface waves the less.

Therefore the world "reference frame" has no meaning from perspective of surface waves. You can simply forget such connection from singular geometry reasons.

Note that the above explanation is valid only for infinitelly fast observation of infinitelly small objects. People aren't pinpoint objects and every real observation takes some time, therefore the absence of reference frame isn't quite perfect and it becomes more pronounces, the larger observational scope it comprehends. Therefore we can detect the reference frame of the microwave background quite well, but special relativity isn't quantum theory, which admits some delocalization. In special relativity each observer is always mathematically pin-point object, therefore the absence of reference frame is always perfect here, too.

It means, the absence of reference frame is only abstract concept, which is valid only for abstract concepts, like the very local observations, or for infinitelly dense Aether of AWT.
Slotin
2.3 / 5 (6) May 06, 2009
..No strangelets..
The existence of strangelets or microscopic black holes can be understood quite easily in AWT by example of so called neutron fluid. Neutrons are neutral particles which decays in ten minutes into protons and electrons (and some antineutrino, which balances the volume curvature shift). Because the volume of resulting particles is higher, such decomposition can be inhibited or even reversed by large pressure. Such pressure exists inside of large neutron stars, which are conditionally stable.

But every sufficiently tiny droplet of such dense matter exhibits a extreme surface tension, which increases the hydrostatic pressure inside of droplets of neutrons in such a way, the neutrons are stabilized here in the same way, like inside of neutron stars. Note that such mechanism works only when the surface curvature remains sufficiently high, i.e. when droplet isn't large then common atom nuclei.

Such droplet stabilized by surface tension is called a strangelet. The strangelets composed of pure neutron fluid aren't completely stable and they decompose fast into protons and electrons. But by adding of excessive protons in 1:1 ration the decomposition can be prohibited in such a way, the resulting droplets remains stable. We are calling them an atom nuclei. The danger of strangelet formation is, they have a tendency to expel protons from atom nuclei, thus changing them into another strangelets composed of free neutrons.

The similar stabilization could be observed for every neutral particle, like the Xi or Lambda baryons or neutral mesons such as pions and kaons.
THEY
3.7 / 5 (6) May 06, 2009
Zephir, you are obnoxious. How many sock puppets do you HAVE now???? Sheesh. 90% of the comments here are YOU. What a freaking attention whoore.... You are a sick man.
Alizee
May 06, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
superhuman
3 / 5 (2) May 07, 2009
As I explained you already, from perspective of surface waves the water surface appears always like void, empty space. Just because the particles of water surface are serving as a medium for surface wave spreading, they cannot serve as a subject of observation just with these waves.

But we don't care how "the water surface looks from the perspective of water surface" (whatever that means to you), all we do is measure vertical displacement of water surface and compare it to the mean displacement measured before the experiment. When this relative displacement is larger then a certain amount we register an arrival of the wave. This way we obtain information when the wave arrives, we then compare the times between arrivals and *deduce* the movement of the medium, so we do not observe the medium directly we deduce it's properties from those of the waves propagating in it, this is a perfectly valid approach.

No pin-point object can serve both as a mean, both as a subject of the same observation at the same moment.

Neither photons nor surface waves are point objects so this is irrelevant.

Can you clearly state which of this 3 statements is wrong and why:
1. Light is a vibration of aether
2. Light is a vibration that moves through aether with constant speed
2. An observer moving relative to the aether will observe a different effective speed of light then an observer stationary relative to the aether
Alexa
2.1 / 5 (7) May 07, 2009
..we don't care how "the water surface looks from the perspective of water surface WAVES"
Why not? This perspective is the KEY for intuitive understanding of special relativity. You can replace such understanding by abstract postulate, but you will lost connection to understanding of Lorentz symmetry violation. Which is completelly unnecessary, as such understanding is quite trivial.

..all we do is measure vertical displacement of water surface ..
But such vertical displacement is unacessible for you, when you're observing it just by surface water waves. This is measurement from perspective of some much faster energy waves (usually sound or light) - which you have not available in vacuum. You should use a gravitational waves to determine it, but these waves are quite weak and dispersive. Anyway, M-M experiment has used light waves only for observation, so it has no meaning to consider some observation, which cannot be done by light wave.

When observing water surface waves by light waves from above, you're like God, who can see everything - but such perspective isn't accessible for us in vacuum.
Concerning your questions:
1. Light is special vibration of special Aether phase of finite density, i.e. transversal waves of so called vacuum.
2. with respect to infinitelly dense Aether, light spreads in constant speed, but this speed is infinitelly small, so it has no meaning to consider it
3. supposedly yes, but the reference frame of Aether is undetectable for us anyway from obvious reason. Aether is abstract concept in AWT: it cannot be never seen, it's reference frame the less. If you want to talk about something testable, ask for vacuum, not for Aether.
Alexa
2.3 / 5 (6) May 07, 2009
Briefly speaking, every attempt to compare the observation of surface waves with light waves at water surface to the observation of light waves with light waves in vaccum is a fringe idea, because we have only single kind of wave of unique speed at the first case, whereas we have at least two kinds of waves of different speed which are spreading in different number of dimensions at the second case. It means, your understanding of surface wave observation isn't complete analogy, because you're introduction additional dimensions into observations, which you haven't available in vacuum.

You cannot compare apples with oranges under hope, you'll get meaningfull results from consistency reasons.
Alexa
2.1 / 5 (7) May 07, 2009
Inside of random system of nested density fluctuations a many sorts of waves can propagate at the same moment. When these waves are faster, then they can spread with lower intensity and vice-versa. The transversal waves at the same level of density fluctuations spreads slower, but with higher intensity, then the longitudinal waves, which can use a higher number of space-time dimensions for their spreading.

The light waves aren't exceptional from perspective of AWT at all - they've only maximal product of intensity and speed, that's all. We can use gravitational waves for observations as well, but these waves are too subtle for us.

We can approximate the nested density fluctuations by model of kissing (closely adjacent) hyperspheres of various number of dimensions. The most compact arrangement for energy spreading is valid just for 3D hyperspheres and spreading along their surfaces, which defines the number of spatial dimensions of our space and time. We can see the surfaces of these hyperspheres at the structure of dark matter streaks: they're forming the most compact arrangement of myriads tiny particles, which are forming the cosmic space.

http://mathworld....king.htm
http://superstrun...comb.gif
http://superstrun...tter.gif
superhuman
3.7 / 5 (3) May 08, 2009
..we don't care how "the water surface looks from the perspective of water surface WAVES"
Why not? This perspective is the KEY for intuitive understanding of special relativity.

Because it is meaningless, the verb "to look" is not defined in context of inanimate objects, if it means something to you it is only because you have extended the original definition beyond it's scope somehow but you cannot expect others to know what you mean.
..all we do is measure vertical displacement of water surface ..
But such vertical displacement is unacessible for you, when you're observing it just by surface water waves. This is measurement from perspective of some much faster energy waves (usually sound or light) - which you have not available in vacuum.

We don't need faster waves, we use light because we can but we can just as well stick a hand out and note when it gets wet and then count until it get's wet again, there are many ways of achieving the same results.

Anyway, M-M experiment has used light waves only for observation, so it has no meaning to consider some observation, which cannot be done by light wave.

Ok, let's drop the water case and stick to M-M experiment, it uses interference of light, it is perfectly possible to have the interference pattern of light waves preserved on a photographic film so in this configuration you don't use any other waves you just preserve the pattern in film - in matter - and then deduce the speed of the medium based on the resulting pattern and known dimensions of the experiment, what is wrong with this setup according to you?

Concerning your questions:
1. Light is special vibration of special Aether phase of finite density, i.e. transversal waves of so called vacuum.

Why so special, light should be the simplest case also do you mean that your aether has many different phases?

2. with respect to infinitelly dense Aether, light spreads in constant speed, but this speed is infinitelly small, so it has no meaning to consider it

So you have both infinitely and finitely dense aether in a single theory? And how can the speed be infinitely small, it is completely non-physical!

3. supposedly yes, but the reference frame of Aether is undetectable for us anyway from obvious reason. Aether is abstract concept in AWT: it cannot be never seen, it's reference frame the less. If you want to talk about something testable, ask for vacuum, not for Aether.

So the speed of light differs depending on the movement of the observer?

I asked three most basic questions any you gave extremely convoluted answers which not only postulate many phases for aether and both finite and infinite density in the same theory but also admit completely non physical effects - "infinitely small" speed of light and a variation of the speed of light with the movement of the observer?

How can you expect anyone to treat such theory seriously?
Slotin
2.1 / 5 (7) May 08, 2009
..because it is meaningless..
This is the reason, why physics doesn't care about private "meaning" of theories. It just ask, whether some physical model describes a real situation, or not - that's all. The absence of meaning would disqualify most of physical theories immediatelly.
what is wrong with this setup according to you
Nothing - it just proves the material character of vacuum in another way. The same interference patter you can observe even with using of waves at the water surface.
light should be the simplest case
I dunno... Are transversal waves simpler, the lets say, longitudinal one?
have both infinitely and finitely dense aether in a single theory
Nope, Aether is infinitelly dense, vacuum is of finite density.
how can the speed be infinitely small
For example, if you're standing at place.. - is it non-physical situation?
speed of light differs depending on the movement of the observer
It depends, whether this observer is using light for observation of this movement, or not. Usually it does - after then the light speed becomes invariant by its very definition.
..how can you expect anyone to treat such theory seriously..
You're not "anyone" - you cannot speak for other people. AWT simply proposes model, in which we can study and understand relativistic and quantum phenomena by classical particle environment. If you're not interested about such understanding, then the AWT has no meaning for you by the same way, like the string theory has no meaning for me. But the subjective meaning isn't subject of intersubjective science.
yyz
3.7 / 5 (3) May 08, 2009
@Alexa, above you stated "If you want to talk about something testable, ask for vacuum, not for Aether." So this theory is not even testable? That sounds like religion to me, not science. You also stated "Aether is abstract concept in AWT: it cannot be never seen" . Could you please explain what you mean? It sounds like your saying it can be seen!
Slotin
2.1 / 5 (7) May 08, 2009
AWT basically says, behavior of particles at all space-time scales corresponds the behavior of density fluctuations inside of another level of particle environment. From this concept of quantum foam and string fluctuations follows. But in AWT even the tiniest string is formed by number of many other density fluctuations (preons, whatever...) and this recursion goes to infinity. It means, AWT considers infinite number of nested dimensions, not just ten or eleven.

Every theory is based on religion and extrapolations of reality - for example special relativity considers, speed of light is constant at all circumstances. Which is religion - nothing else.

So I have no problem with invisibility of Aether, because it's just another extrapolation of observable reality.
Slotin
1.7 / 5 (6) May 08, 2009
Infinite density of Aether is expected from consistency reasons. For example, in AWT the Big Bang is interpreted like quite common phase transition of matter, simmilar to condensation of fluid dropplet from gas. While contemporary physics cannot explain the formation of such incredible amount of matter and energy from "nothing", so I choosed a dual approach: I consider, the Universe always consist of infinite amount of energy and matter in dynamic equillibrium, the Big Bang was just a moment, when such equilibrium was violated locally.

In my opinion, whole Big Bang is just an observational illusion and (nearly) every sufficiently remote observer would see our part of Universe as being very old by the same way, like we can see his part of universe. This is analogous to observation of country in haze, where every observer can see horizont foggy and blurred, albeit such place appears quite clear and transparent from local perspective. But from consistency reasons I can maintain a general time dimension and perspective, in which our Universe formation appears like huge condensation or collapse of giant star into collapsar.
superhuman
5 / 5 (1) May 09, 2009
what is wrong with this setup according to you
Nothing - it just proves the material character of vacuum in another way. The same interference patter you can observe even with using of waves at the water surface.

It proves the Earth is not moving relative to the aether and therefore the concept of aether as envisioned by 19th century physicists should be discarded.

I was trying to point out to you that the M-M experiment and its interpretation is solid and really does rule out aether, but after reading your bizarre answers I've realized your theory is far too ill-defined for that to succeed, it's more like a set of loosely connected ideas then a proper self consistent physical theory.
superhuman
5 / 5 (2) May 09, 2009
Every theory is based on religion and extrapolations of reality - for example special relativity considers, speed of light is constant at all circumstances. Which is religion - nothing else.

No, it's called a postulate and the only thing it has in common with religion is that it may be based on some belief. Once an experiment convincingly shows this postulate to be wrong special relativity will automatically be rendered invalid.
Religion OTOH is not concerned with experiments.
Slotin
1.7 / 5 (6) May 09, 2009
..no, it's called a postulate..
This is just a dirty politics, my dear Watson. Modern people can distinguish the situations, when they're using assumptions without further reasoning, i.e. like subject of religion - and when not.
..once an experiment convincingly shows this postulate to be wrong ..
The funny thing is, relativity was proven just by experiment, which proves it wrong, i.e. by relativistic aberration. Gravitational lensing is the example, when light spread through vacuum in various speed, thus violating the assumptions of special relativity..

http://aetherwave...tum.html
Slotin
1.8 / 5 (5) May 09, 2009
..Religion OTOH is not concerned with experiments..
Of course not, but their interpretation depends on subjective stance quite often. The purpose of AWT is to remove residuals of subjectivism from science. They're subtle, but firmly rooted in contemporary physics.

And why the hell I'm doing so? Because it can help us to move forward with further research and to understand better classical physics.
omatumr
1 / 5 (4) May 09, 2009
MYSTERIOUS DARK MATTER

Cosmology will remain in crisis if cosmologists focus their talents on imaginary "dark matter" and ignore the information recorded in rest masses of the 3,000 different types of atoms that comprise the entire visible universe.

You can get the 3000 data points from Nuclear Wallet Cards [Brookhaven National Laboratory] or you can see the data in Figure 3 of this 2001 paper:
http://arxiv.org/.../0411255

The 3,000 mass data points representing all visible matter in the universe show very clearly that repulsive interactions between neutrons is a far greater source of stellar energy than fusion of Hydrogen or fission of Uranium.

See: "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source" [ Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2003) 197-201]
Or: Overheads to a paper presented in Dubna, Russia in 2005 [Available on request to omatumr@yahoo.com]

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http/:www.omatumr.com
Alizee
May 10, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JukriS
1 / 5 (4) May 10, 2009
There is no drawing force at all

Space dont expanding or curving/bending!

There is no dark matter or dark energy.

Nucleus of atoms exploding all a time and emit/radiate exploding energywaves who have a nature of exploding electrons and exploding particle. Electrons just moving to the next exploding nucleus of atoms and giving some change of pressure for energywaves who pushing themselfs out from exploding nuclei of atom and then born new exploding electrons etc.

We can explain everything with change of pressure.

There is only energy whos density can change in space who dont change at all.

http://www.onesim...e.com/l2

http://www.onesim....com/296

.
omatumr
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2009
Manuel, every formation of energy by decomposition of neutrons would lead to much higher antineutrino flux, then we can observe in solar neutrino flux by now (less then 1%).


Alizee, please provide a reference for your statement.

Your real name and research profile would help PhysOrg readers know if you are serious in making such claims.

Thanks,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09
Alizee
May 10, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Damon_Hastings
5 / 5 (1) May 10, 2009
The entire article hinges upon the claim that our local satellite galaxies could not possibly contain dark matter. I would very much like to know more about this claim. It is unfortunate that the author did not fully address this. He said it has something to do with the way they were formed (through collisions of larger galaxies), but why would such collisions selectively eject dark matter? And how can we be certain that dark matter is always ejected in all cases of such collisions, when we know so little about dark matter in the first place?
JukriS
2 / 5 (4) May 11, 2009
Galaxies

The galaxies rotate like wheels. If there would exist a drafting force, should the galaxies have ten times larger mass than it is at present observed. This is because the farthest stars of galaxies circulate the centre of galaxy so fast. The gravity of observed mass is not able to keep them in their orbits. The stars that circulate the furthest should be thrown away from their tracks.

Although the modern physics does not understand how the gravitation is transfered, it still has found out that galaxies consist of some mystery substace that has this drawing force.

The dark substace is different from the observed substance. Yet it has the the same kind of drawing force as the observed substance has.

No, there is no gravitation!

All the stars of the galaxies have arised from the black holes of the giant centres of the galaxies. They expand three-dimentionally, opening up energywaves that have the nature of atoms. The stars expand and push themselves away from the galaxy centre in a curved orbit in a same relation as they expand.

That is to say that also the furthest stars are thrown away from the centre of the galaxy. The same way as their speed of movement around the galaxy centre lets us suppose. Only this is not observed, because everything expands three-dimentionally in same relation.

http://www.onesim....com/223
austux
not rated yet May 11, 2009
Seconding @MrGrynch & @superhuman: admitting only to the existence of gravitic effects ranks up there with æther theories & spontaneous generation.
austux
not rated yet May 11, 2009
Every theory is based on religion and extrapolations of reality — for example, special relativity considers, speed of light is constant at all circumstances.


OK, so how about the speed of darkness?

(-: <G/D/R> :-)
Alizee
May 11, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
lengould100
not rated yet May 11, 2009
So. For a complete change in direction....

If spacetime is currently continuously expanding by a fixed rate at every point in the universe, do the dimensions of fundamental particles also expand? If not, what effects on structures comprised of them?
Alizee
May 11, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Gravimotion
not rated yet May 12, 2009
In physics there is no Aether to allow for the translation of light waves (or photons) in space.



Yet also in physics quantum vacuum is full of frantic energy!



How do you reconcile the two in the reality of space?



I think that in reality the quantum vacuum wins. And light waves are waves of that frantic energy.







On the other hand, I think that rather than expanding as in physics, the universe accelerated motion is imploding; as such one does no longer need "dark matter" as the universe,s accelerated motion works now hand in hand with gravitation,s own accelerated motion.



Note: these are my ideas (officially) endorsed by no one else so far!



Gravimotion



CountVajhula
5 / 5 (1) May 12, 2009
This article seems to be in direct contradiction to this one: http://www.physor...501.html

...where they say that stars in these satellite galaxies are moving SLOWER than expected.

"The stars were found to be moving much slower than stars in any other known galaxy (about 4 to 7 km/sec.)"
yyz
3.7 / 5 (3) May 12, 2009
@ CountVajhula, Good point! This survey of newly found dwarf galaxies around the Milky Way found evidence of large amounts of DM in many of the galaxies studied, directly contradicting the conclusions of the authors of the current study. The preprint version of the paper can be found here: http://arxiv.org/...16v2.pdf . Several papers published since have corroborated the DM findings of this Keck study of 2007.
Alizee
May 13, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jeffsaunders
not rated yet Jun 12, 2009
We are all trying to describe the same thing in different ways. Many cases the only way to solve the problem is to get to the source.

I think the simplest principle should be adopted until it no longer fits and then introduce an extra something until it does.

This is something like what the BB people are doing with Dark Matter and energy and expansion and inflation etc etc etc except that they have not gone back to first principles and looked for something simpler that fits.

When you think you have the simplest model that fits fine use it but if there are simpler models out there and yours is now complicated lets have something more concrete.

The simplest model I can thing of is that there is no gravity just momentum. Therefore all gravity is just an illusion caused by a particle that can travel straight through matter most of the time but when it does collide it provides a little push.

Just as Neutrinos can travel right through planets most of the time.

Now if this simple particle also has properties of magnetics and electrics then we can build all our magic force of attraction and repulsion using slight changes in alignment of these pushing particles/waves as they are extremely small.

These small particles that have the ability to push must travel very fast at all times until they collide with matter and provide that push.

I can even think of an existing discovered particle that appears to be almost capable of doing the job - called the photon.

Funnily enough we even have formulas that almost describe how this can happen. We have one formula that already relates energy to mass and include a maximum velocity which I contend is most likely the speed of the pushing particle that creates all gravity.

Given a postulate that a pushing particle exists that permeates the universe and acts on matter and photons and that all matter is semi permeable to this particle we can conclude that gravity is itself a variable - not a constant.

Can this be tested? yes but with difficulty because changes in gravity would be small and gravity would be close to the same in larger parts of universe.

Where would gravity be stronger and weaker? Gravity would be stronger where there was a greater concentration of the pusher and weaker where the pusher was less concentrated.

What would make for lower concentrations? probably inside an area containing many dense objects in a high concentration therefore producing an overall lesser concentration of pushers because of absorption by matter.

How do pushers affect magnetic and electrics? they are just another side and would work in a similar way except as the push except that the magnetic/electric field is stronger.

Funny how the pusher has all the characteristics of the photon.

Two objects will appear to attract each other because each will absorb some small quantity of pusher rays/particles and will therefore produce a lower density in there near vicinity, place another object nearby and they will fall together into there mutual lower density hence appearance of gravity.

Imagine something similar happening with magnetic/electrics as well.

We may be able to combine all forces of attraction into a single force of pushing perhaps even including weak and strong nuclear force - but have to sort the others out first to be sure.

And surprise surprise - with recent discoveries of variations in some of the basic constants assumed in the past - perhaps we have already discovered that gravity and electric and magnetic "forces" vary from place to place in the universe.

Given a single force to explain these values has great advantages and since it even fits the facts what more could you want?

Also this leads one to ponder where these rays come from and that also is not too difficult and since matter seems to evaporate on its own slowly, we may have a closed system here.
ben6993
not rated yet Jul 09, 2009
Just a silly idea ...







Dark matter could be the vibrational energy of the BB universe. Similarly a particle is represented by a vibrating string. The universe may once have been microscopic and vibrating like a string. It may still be vibrating in a similar fashion.







The vibration could cause inflation in parts of the universe and deflation in other parts. This cannot be used, though, to describe the apparent huge inflation of the BB universe. It is a mystery.







Where there is inflation, the BB space itself is stretching. Matter is mostly (if not completely?) space and so can be expected to inflate along with space?







Assuming that matter resists this inflation of space, and that this shows itself in a reduced inflation of matter (ie of the space within matter) compared to the inflation of space.







Matter tells space how to curve. That means that the space near matter will be affected by the nearby matter and that space will have a different rate of inflation, assumed to be less than that of matter.







This may mean that gravity near an object associated with a large cluster of objects may be larger than gravity near the same object when isolated?







This describes gravity as a side effect of inflation. But, as you do not usually get something for nothing, it does not explain the mystery of inflation.
ben6993
not rated yet Jul 09, 2009
I meant 'dark energy' not dark matter. 3 mins was not enough editting time. My apologies.