Dark matter may be hiding in a hidden sector

November 11, 2016 by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org feature
This image shows the galaxy cluster Abell 1689, with the mass distribution of the dark matter in the gravitational lens overlaid (in purple). The mass in this lens is made up partly of normal (baryonic) matter and partly of dark matter. Credit: NASA, ESA, E. Jullo (JPL/LAM), P. Natarajan (Yale) and J-P. Kneib (LAM).

(Phys.org)—Currently, one of the strongest candidates for dark matter is weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPS, although so far this hypothetical particle has not yet been directly detected. Now in a new study, physicists have proposed that dark matter is not a WIMP, and further, it is not any particle that is so far known or theorized to exist.

Instead, the physicists argue that dark matter is made of from one of the many "hidden sectors" that are thought to exist outside of the "visible sector" that encompasses our entire visible world. The team of researchers, Bobby Acharya, Sebastian Ellis, Gordon Kane, Brent Nelson, and Malcolm Perry, from institutions in the UK, Italy, and the US, has published their study in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters.

Hidden sectors are so-named because particles in these sectors don't feel the strong and electroweak forces like those in the visible sector do, which greatly reduces their interaction with the visible sector. So hidden sector particles could be all around us—we just currently have no way to detect them.

In the proposed scenario, dark matter consists of particles in the hidden sector that communicate through a portal from the hidden sector to the visible sector, and in this way exert the gravitational effects that scientists have long observed.

While such an idea may sound far-fetched, hidden sectors and portals have long been components of string theory and M-theory—two theories that seek to explain particle physics at its most fundamental level.

The main support for the new claim boils down to a question of stability. In general, heavier particles decay into lighter particles. So lighter particles, being more stable, are much more likely candidates for dark matter. This is where the long-standing support for WIMPs comes from, since WIMPs are the lightest supersymmetric particle, and therefore, until now, considered to be stable.

However, since approximately 100 hidden sectors are thought to exist, but only one visible sector, the scientists argue in the new study that some hidden sector likely contains a particle that is even lighter than WIMPs.

The scientists show that WIMPs could theoretically decay into one or more lighter hidden sector particles, which could in turn decay into even lighter hidden sector particles. So the lightest supersymmetric particle in the visible sector wouldn't be stable enough to be dark matter. Instead, according to this argument, some currently unknown hidden sector particle would be a much more likely dark matter candidate.

"The greatest significance of our work is that it forces theorists to rethink the paradigm of what is called WIMP dark matter," Ellis, a physicist at the University of Michigan, told Phys.org. "WIMPs have been the most popular candidates for what constitutes dark matter for over 30 years. A WIMP is a particle a bit like the Higgs or Z-boson that are electrically neutral, heavy particles which participate in the weak nuclear interactions, but unlike the Higgs or Z-boson, WIMP dark matter would be stable on cosmological scales. WIMP dark matter has most commonly been discussed within the context of supersymmetry (SUSY).

"For 30 years, theorists have thought that in SUSY models, the lightest SUSY particle was a good dark matter candidate due to its stability. However, in our paper we argue that if you take the Standard Model of particle physics as residing in a greater, string/M-theory framework, then supersymmetric WIMPs are probably not a good dark matter candidate, because we show that they are typically unstable.

"The string landscape encompasses a vast number of possible low-energy theories. However, we found that nearly all of the landscape would exhibit this feature of WIMP instability. Such a conclusion means that if we are to think seriously of embedding our visible universe in a string theory, we have to seriously consider the natural possibility that dark matter resides in a hidden sector, or we are forced into a very untypical corner of the string landscape."

If dark matter does turn out to be a hidden sector particle, it would explain why WIMPs have been so difficult to detect in particle colliders. In order to detect a WIMP, scientists will have to modify their search and look in different places.

"If dark matter comes from a hidden sector, it poses a serious issue of how to detect it, other than through its gravitational interactions," Ellis said. "String/M-theory can provide so-called 'portals' which connect these hidden sectors to our visible sector, thus potentially leading to a means of searching for hidden sector dark matter. Also, if dark matter is 'proven' experimentally to be in a hidden sector, it would fit very naturally with typical models of the universe that arise in string and M-theory."

In the future, the scientists plan to further investigate the exact signature of a WIMP decaying into a hidden sector particle, which would guide future experiments.

"We are currently finalizing a follow-up paper where we consider typical string/M-theory hidden sector constructions which could give good candidates for ," Ellis said. "Most importantly, we find there are such candidates. The typical signature of such constructions is that when SUSY particles are produced in a collider, the WIMP will decay promptly into the hidden sector and other visible particles. Thus one would expect the typical collider signature for SUSY, namely missing energy, but accompanied by more particles than in a typical SUSY event."

Explore further: 3 knowns and 3 unknowns about dark matter

More information: Bobby S. Acharya, Sebastian A. R. Ellis, Gordon L. Kane, Brent D. Nelson, and Malcolm J. Perry . "Lightest Visible-Sector Supersymmetric Particle is Likely to be Unstable." Physical Review Letters. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.181802
Also at arXiv:1604.05320 [hep-ph]

Related Stories

What if dark matter particles aren't WIMPs?

December 12, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- For years, many physicists have accepted that dark matter is composed of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). The fact that WIMPs can naturally explain the amount of dark matter in the universe – ...

The secret lives of long-lived particles

October 3, 2016

The universe is unbalanced. Gravity is tremendously weak. But the weak force, which allows particles to interact and transform, is enormously strong. The mass of the Higgs boson is suspiciously petite. And the catalog of ...

Bright sparks shed new light on the dark matter riddle

February 1, 2016

The origin of matter in the universe has puzzled physicists for generations. Today, we know that matter only accounts for 5% of our universe; another 25% is constituted of dark matter. And the remaining 70% is made up of ...

Recommended for you

Improved thermal-shock resistance in industrial ceramics

August 21, 2018

Ceramic materials are used in nuclear, chemical and electrical power generation industries because of their ability to withstand extreme environments. However, at high temperatures, ceramics are susceptible to thermal-shock ...

188 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
2.8 / 5 (13) Nov 11, 2016
ROTFLMAO! And it was published! More pseudoscientific clap trap for the pop-scifi fans.
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Nov 11, 2016
November 11, 2016, 9:43 am 1 shavera

WOW, just stunning how fast that guy who took Thermodynamics For Beginner's in grad school (Shavo) got here to downvote.
xponen
3 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2016
@cantdrive85, @Benni
The writer is just trolling you guys. He put "hidden sector" with "portal" and then "dark matter" in the same paragraph, shocking you guys, without defining it first. I bet it's not sci-fi.
Protoplasmix
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2016
WIMPs have been the most popular candidates for what constitutes dark matter for over 30 years.
The greater a person's knowledge of the requisite mathematics and sciences, the greater is that person's ability to appreciate the possibilities, especially when accompanied with testable predictions.
ROTFLMAO! And it was published! More pseudoscientific clap trap for the pop-scifi fans.
Clearly this individual lacks the ability to appreciate the possibilities.
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2016
While such an idea may sound far-fetched, hidden sectors and portals have long been components of string theory and M-theory—two theories that seek to explain particle physics at its most fundamental level.

If I had posted this, I would have been met with a howl of derision from Fizz/Strumpo/Irate/etc. However, in this case, I would have deserved it.......
Have these guys considered that WIMPs may not exist because DM does not exist, and the evidence for it is misinterpretation or the fundamental errors in the "laws" of gravity? If they put their brains to work on that we might get some results, instead of following the string theory/M-theory crowd down a blind alley.
zorro6204
5 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2016
That's a similar explanation as to why gravity is so weak, but it depends on string theory being correct, with hidden multiple dimensions and all that. So far there's exactly zero evidence for any of it, despite the attractions of the theory, and how well it solves problems like this. So it's really just a chalkboard explanation.
Protoplasmix
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 11, 2016
Oh look, Trump's boy Benni is in the house, how ya doin' bud?
"Trump will be the first anti-science president we have ever had,"
– Michael Lubell, director of public affairs for the American Physical Society in Washington DC
– see Donald Trump's US election win stuns scientists (Nature, 2016)

Why, Benni, why?
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2016
The greater a person's knowledge of the requisite mathematics and sciences
..so far, not bad.

the greater is that person's ability to appreciate the possibilities


.....now you deviate from applying "requisite math" to some kind of statistical probability ("possibilities") that the appropriate math has been discovered. This is like concocting 10 different equations for 10 different theories & wondering which one of the ten different theories is the correct theory, but if none of the ten different theories were right to begin with, all the so-called "requisite mathematics" was erroneous right out of the starting gate.

especially when accompanied with testable predictions.
........but first you need something "testable" & I wonder if you even know what that means. The entire DM concept of "testable" has always been something about "INFERRED GRAVITY" which doesn't even rise to the level of OBSERVABILITY much less TESTABLE.

Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 11, 2016
Oh look, Trump's boy Benni is in the house, how ya doin' bud?
"Trump will be the first anti-science president we have ever had,"
– Michael Lubell, director of public affairs for the American Physical Society in Washington DC
– see http://www.nature...-1.20952 (Nature, 2016)

Why, Benni, why?
.......because we're gonna get rid of a bunch of mathematically challenged Biologists who've been drawing salaries from the public trough as the sole source of their income, most of them function as worthless bureaucrats spending more time lobbying Congress for more funding than working in labs producing something of substantive value.

dogbert
3 / 5 (8) Nov 11, 2016
Benni,
Dark matter has never been testable. It was defined to lack all normal attributes of matter except gravity.

If it can be moved into another dimension, it will remain forever untestable. That way we don't ever have to change our models which cannot model what we observe.
liquidspacetime
Nov 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Protoplasmix
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2016
Cool, Benni, I can't wait to gets these jobs back, too, so we can work 2 jobs each, Saturdays AND Sundays AND Holidays AND not be able to make ends meet at the Company's stores, AND – wait, we already got that going for us... (Arbeit Macht Frei, Benni)

Cool, Benni, I can't wait to finally finally bomb the terrorists to oblivion AND their families AND – wait, we already got that going for us...

Do you hope to get close enough to him some day Benni for him to grab your genitals? He's a SUPERstar now, Benni, he can do that, you'll let him, won't you?
hawkingsbrother
Nov 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rhugh1066
3.3 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2016
When I was 6 I had a friend, a giant bear, that lived outside the visible sector. I wonder if he was made of Dark Matter? =)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2016
@bschott
It is called a metaphor.
Here, let me google that for you:
http://bfy.tw/XRQ
The post btw is in breach of a few guidelines but hey there is no moderation here.

Incorrect. I've noted numerous "removed by moderator" labels, as of late...
Even one of my own..
gculpex
not rated yet Nov 11, 2016
@bschott
It is called a metaphor.
Here, let me google that for you:
http://bfy.tw/XRQ
The post btw is in breach of a few guidelines but hey there is no moderation here.

Incorrect. I've noted numerous "removed by moderator" labels, as of late...
Even one of my own..

And I thought the same until it happened to me.
CCMcCombs
4.7 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2016
since approximately 100 hidden sectors are thought to exist, but only one visible sector...


100 Hidden Sectors! Good Gravy! But would it just be one soupy hidden sector? Since as soon as we detect something then it is visible. How are we able to differentiate the hidden sectors?
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2016
Hidden sector... Do they mean "dimension"?

Just a wild thought experiment, here. What if gravity itself, has "gravity"...?
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 11, 2016
Instead, the physicists argue that dark matter is made of particles from one of the many "hidden sectors" that are thought to exist outside of the "visible sector" that encompasses our entire visible world.


However, since approximately 100 hidden sectors are thought to exist, but only one visible sector


Hidden sectors are so-named because particles in these sectors don't feel the strong and electroweak forces like those in the visible sector


In the proposed scenario, dark matter consists of particles in the hidden sector that communicate through a portal from the hidden sector to the visible sector


if we are to think seriously of embedding our visible universe in a string theory, we have to seriously consider the natural possibility that dark matter resides in a hidden sector


To the Casual Reader, above are the highlights of the article, this kind of funny farm science is the reason government needs to get out of funding research.
theon
1.5 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2016
thought dm = neutrinos
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2016
Just a wild thought experiment, here. What if gravity itself, has "gravity"?


Whyguy do you keep asking this question so frequently? You're not satisfied with answers you get? Or you just never get responses & you keep hoping someday you'll get a lucky hit?

Actually there is a kind of an answer but it doesn't directly address your question.

The reason physicists know the velocity of gravity is the same as photons is the fact that large EM fields generate measurable gravity fields. Wherever energy shows up, so does gravity. Because energy is simply transformed mass, everything inherent to mass is inherent to energy, gravity doesn't just disappear into oblivion when mass is transformed to photons.

Why gravity attaches itself to a photon & be carried with it is unknown, but it's the reason physicists wonder if there is a familial connection between the two simply because it appears that it is the velocity of photons that limits the velocity of gravitational attraction.
rrrander
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2016
Trump is antiscience just like Benni.
It is only natural that Benni supports him



Not according to his public statements. Just because he doesn't swallow the global warming propaganda doesn't mean he's anti-science, except to left-wing goons whose jobs are on the line.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2016
Dark matter is part of the energy of space itself. See my book Advanced Relativity.
Urgelt
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2016
"While such an idea may sound far-fetched..."

Understatement.

But then, all Dark Matter candidates sound far-fetched.

Hell, *reality* is far-fetched. It's a crazy damn universe.
Urgelt
1.5 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2016
CC posed, "100 Hidden Sectors! Good Gravy! But would it just be one soupy hidden sector? Since as soon as we detect something then it is visible. How are we able to differentiate the hidden sectors?"

Like CC, I can't envision 100 'hidden sectors.' I can't imagine the spacetime structure required by string theory or M-theory. 'Peculiar' doesn't do them justice.

I'm just talking out of my ass here, but I presume that if either string theory or M-theory is accurate, the way forward is to find a way to pry open one of those theoretical portals and have a peek.

Of course string theory and M-theory are neither one well-supported by evidence, and even if they were, we as yet have no clue how to open one of the portals they predict are possible.

Seems as if the mystery of DM is a long way from solved.
Urgelt
3.5 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2016
theon wrote, "thought dm = neutrinos."

No candidate is ruled out at this juncture. But it's fair to say that currently, neutrinos are not a favored candidate.

If DM is neutrinos, there would have to be many orders of magnitude more of them than known physics expects. We would need to explain how they're produced in volumes much greater than stars are expected to produce them. There's also the problem of their speed; they're almost massless and moving virtually at the speed of light. So they're always moving at escape velocity relative to any galaxy, unless they're trapped within the event horizon of a black hole. So how do they manage to hang around and provide observable gravitational effects in galaxies over cosmological time?

It's hard to make that case. If neutrinos are produced outside of stars and can slow down and remain gravitationally bound to a galaxy, then neutrinos are even stranger than they already known to be. And that's pretty strange.
xponen
5 / 5 (1) Nov 12, 2016
Not according to his public statements. Just because he doesn't swallow the global warming propaganda doesn't mean he's anti-science, except to left-wing goons whose jobs are on the line.

Before election, Scientific American magazine interviewed political candidate with questionnaires, on government policy related to science, and rated their responses. The result; Donald Trump scored low on science policy. At that point, Donald Trump is obviously a bad candidate. It's not just Hillary Clinton who have better score, there's others too (who I forgot the name).

Once I heard scientist joked about Donald Trump being president during lecture. This is also before the election.
Reg Mundy
2.8 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2016
@Benni
Why gravity attaches itself to a photon & be carried with it is unknown, but it's the reason physicists wonder if there is a familial connection between the two simply because it appears that it is the velocity of photons that limits the velocity of gravitational attraction.
Mmm, the photon is not a candidate to "carry gravity" (if gravity exists!), the characteristics of a "gravity" particle are envisaged in the fabulous "gravitino" (no trace of which has ever been found). The "gravity waves" detected by LIGO were not associated with photons of any wavelength known to man.
Benni
2.4 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2016
the photon is not a candidate to "carry gravity"


What I'm saying here is that gravity is as inherent to ENERGY as it is to MASS, I'm not implying that PHOTONS (ENERGY) is in itself the CAUSE, rather that it is an EFFECT of the presence of MASS/ENERGY.

The "gravity waves" detected by LIGO were not associated with photons of any wavelength known to man


This is the biggest mystery of the inherent presence of gravity within EM Fields. When MASS is transformed is there a greater quantity of gravity that becomes inherent to higher frequency PHOTONS than to lower frequency photons? There are no calculations for this scenario, but my hunch is that it is photon flux density dependent & not photon frequency dependent, this is to say that the greater the flux density of an EM field the greater the gravity field at any frequency, be it at infrared or gamma.

katesisco
1.5 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2016
Actually I am a sci-fi fan and this is garbage. I also read Miles Mathis.
What the article describes is the atomic matter that fails to describe our insights into REQUISITE chemical bonding that fail to bond.
I hesitate to use the name I know this by as every new scientific paper develops an old idea around new wording. MONO ATOMIC ELEMENTS DIFFERENT FROM OUR DESCRIPTIONS OF CHEMICALLY BONDED ELEMEMTS.
The Trump show will not interfere with government in the same manner as Obama. One is mild and retiring ( why the establishment advocated Bernie) and one is boisterous and a blowhard. We just changed the soap opera channel. The Bush bunglers never actually left office. Which is why Ms Clinton who would have upset the global control apple cart was excoriated.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2016
sub; Ambiguity and confusion- Chaos- why not Paradigm Shift -knowledge base-origins.
present state of confusion is self evident through -http://phys.org/n...ark.html
NECESSITY-DEMAND - interaction - cosmology Vedas Interlinks- Books at LULU
1. visible -invisible matrixof the Universe and Super-imposition - see my paper COSPAR 2013
2. Search Beyond Dark matter- lead Kindly Light- Tamasoma Jyothih-Gamaya
www.lulu.com/cont...er-2005/
3. Cosmic Consciousness- Cosmology revision
Om Cosmic consciousness to cosmology Revision-2000 by Vidyardhi nanduri
While at Chicago, I find the groups are still not Open-minded to remove this confusion!
Protoplasmix
3 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2016
.....now you deviate from applying "requisite math" to some kind of statistical probability ("possibilities") that the appropriate math ...
You misunderstand and malign what's obvious, here's the math: If Theory X is correct, particles will have qualities 1, 3, and 7; if Theory Y is correct, particle qualities are 1, 3, 7, and 42; If Theory Z is correct, they're not particles, they're vibrating strings and loops; etc.

X, Y, Z, etc are possibilities. The smart people (scientists) are cranking out these possibilities, all viable and most of them testable, which currently number in the thousands, while you and others complain about and demean the efforts, unable to appreciate them.

Here are some quick examples to illustrate the point, from the preprint's references (arXiv link):
Two hundred heterotic standard models on smooth Calabi-Yau threefolds
Anomalous U(1)'s in type I string vacua
Kinetic mixing of the photon with hidden U(1)s in string phenomenology
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2016
You misunderstand and malign what's obvious, here's the math: If Theory X is correct, particles will have qualities 1, 3, and 7; if Theory Y is correct, particle qualities are 1, 3, 7, and 42; If Theory Z is correct, they're not particles, they're vibrating strings and loops; etc.


"If,If, possibilities, possibilities".........I think I got the right number of times you resorted to inferring statistical domain probability that you unintelligibly misconstrue as "requisite math".

When you can put up some Differential Equations then you'll have some requisite math, but such "requisite math" cannot be attached to something that is not TESTABLE or OBSERVABLE.

It only makes sense you would distort mathematical terminology when you already have demonstrated a mindset that can sink to this level of thought:
Do you hope to get close enough to him some day Benni for him to grab your genitals? He's a SUPERstar now, Benni, he can do that, you'll let him, won't you?


Benni
2 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2016

Protoplasmix: Is the following your classification of "requisite math" ?

Do you hope to get close enough to him some day Benni for him to grab your genitals? He's a SUPERstar now, Benni, he can do that, you'll let him, won't you?


Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2016
Willful, knowledgeable support of Trump IS TREASON. This the greatest threat the USA has faced since the Civil War. Potentially a more dangerous threat. What you won't read in the news is that the entire Republican response to Trump is a charade intended to contain this threat without allowing the public or Trump to know about it. Republican base voters and Trump himself will most likely swallow that bait, so It may work, but that is not the best way to deal with this kind of threat. Trump is also very likely to end up removed from office, should the electoral college end up complicit with the Republican scheme.
All that is needed to distract Trump is to place a mirror in front of him, and all that is needed to placate his delusional supporters is the simplest of cons, as has been so amply demonstrated.
Reg Mundy
2.5 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2016
@Benni
the photon is not a candidate to "carry gravity"


What I'm saying here is that gravity is as inherent to ENERGY as it is to MASS, I'm not implying that PHOTONS (ENERGY) is in itself the CAUSE, rather that it is an EFFECT of the presence of MASS/ENERGY.

The "gravity waves" detected by LIGO were not associated with photons of any wavelength known to man


This is the biggest mystery of the inherent presence of gravity within EM Fields. When MASS is transformed is there a greater quantity of gravity that becomes inherent to higher frequency PHOTONS than to lower frequency photons? There are no calculations for this scenario, but my hunch is that it is photon flux density dependent & not photon frequency dependent, this is to say that the greater the flux density of an EM field the greater the gravity field at any frequency, be it at infrared or gamma.


Sounds reasonable, or would if gravity existed as a force.....
Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2016
@Benni
my hunch is that it is photon flux density dependent & not photon frequency dependent, this is to say that the greater the flux density of an EM field the greater the gravity field at any frequency, be it at infrared or gamma.

What you are saying here is that the higher the flux density (i.e. the more photons), the greater the gravity, which would follow if "gravity" was associated with mass (assuming photons have mass!). So, the more photons, the more mass, the more "gravity", as for any form of matter be it photons or electrons or protons or neutrons or .........and so on.
I look forward to hearing of any correlation with frequency. If my theories are correct, there well might be, as higher frequencies infer greater velocities in elementary particle "orbits" (the building blocks of photons), thus implying greater mass of the particles due to relativistic effects, thus higher "mass" of the photon, thus higher "gravity" (or the effect referred to as "gravity").
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Nov 12, 2016
Just a wild thought experiment, here. What if gravity itself, has "gravity"?


Whyguy do you keep asking this question so frequently? You're not satisfied with answers you get? Or you just never get responses & you keep hoping someday you'll get a lucky hit?


Interestingly enough, I believe this is the first time I've actually asked that question...
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2016
rrander, Trump is very clearly anti-science. My job is not at all "on the line" - quite the opposite. Movement toward power generation technologies the don't involve thermal systems makes my career obsolete. Your faith in Trump's public statements proves that you are completely out of touch with reality, or psychotic. You will now join the other psycho droolers on my ignore list.
RealityCheck
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2016
Hi Benni, Zzzzzzzz, everyone. :)

Has anyone considered the possibility that, as Trump claimed, the election WAS rigged? Only the rigging was against Clinton, not Trump? Donald said that if he lost it would be because it was rigged; and that he would challenge via the courts. Would Donald have a fit if Clinton used that same excuse to challenge his election, or would he agree that the election MAY have been rigged after all (recall that the Russian hacking activity was very blatant recently, and that possibility uppermost in the minds of those responsible for the ELECTRONIC VOTING machines/systems involved)? Anyhow, 'just sayin', as they say. Enjoy the ride, folks! Maybe that old Chinese Curse has come to roost upon America of today; and I quote:
May you live in "interesting" times!


Whatever transpires, we all have no choice but to "make the best of a bad lot",hey? Good luck and good thinking to you all, both in your science related and in your humanity related dealings! :)
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2016
as higher frequencies infer greater velocities in elementary particle "orbits" (the building blocks of photons), thus implying greater mass of the particles due to relativistic effects
.......interesting point, I do see what you mean about "relativistic effects" of elementary particles in the case of electron orbitals possibly those in high z atoms gaining greater mass.

What I don't see is the connection of electron velocity to frequency of photons, unless of course you're referring to the energy an electron gives up when it falls into a lower orbital position from a higher orbital position & kinetic energy is lost when it gives up a photon thus lowering the mass thus reducing the force of gravity within the atom? Is this what you're getting at?



RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
To protect myself I will say : "no, why?"
Which question was that in answer to, mate?

By the way, in what way does your answer above confer "protection" upon you; and why do you feel you 'need' such "protection"; and from what, exactly?

Anyhow, I was 'just sayin', that's all. I don't expect it will affect what is about to transpire 'over there', anyhow. It was just interesting/amusing speculative aside to release some of the obvious political tensions which already started to seep into the PO 'exchanges' between certain parties posting here at PO. Relax and enjoy the ride (just curious: are you American, mate?).
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2016
@WG
Interestingly enough, I believe this is the first time I've actually asked that question...

That is a very good question that touches on what I believe is a symptom of the problem with GRT: it does not have a definition of gravitational field energy.
This abstract and paper discusses the issue: https://arxiv.org...809.2323
Benni just does not know anything about GRT, but in a very funny way.

Thanks, Phys. I'll try and wade thru it...:-}
Protoplasmix
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2016
"If,If, possibilities, possibilities"


If Benni knew anything about the requisite maths/physics he would have asked me about topologies or manifolds or fiber bundles instead of trotting out his tired old request to see differential equations, using capital letters because he thinks it looks extra impressive that way...

If Benni knew anything about basic logic he wouldn't mistake it for statistics or probabilities...

If Benni knew anything about the basic physics of action/reaction he wouldn't support someone who promises continued war and destruction...

If Benni knew or was capable of humanism he wouldn't support or defend sexual assault...

If Benni knew anything about karma he would realize his hero is facing a probabilistic non-zero chance of soon being convicted of fraud, sexual assault, and/or tax evasion (for things even his lawyers told him, "Dude! That's so unorthodox there's a high probability you'll be audited,")...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Nov 12, 2016
It gives an excellent overview of the problem.
In my opinion it does not offer the solution.

Correct, it does not...
I am kinda intrigued by the "Verlinde View", tho...:-)
Which, btw, can be considered using geometric relativism methodology...
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2016
........but first you need something "testable" & I wonder if you even know what that means. The entire DM concept of "testable" has always been something about "INFERRED GRAVITY" which doesn't even rise to the level of OBSERVABILITY much less TESTABLE.


Benni,
ALL gravity observations are "inferred"...
Doesn't mean non-existant.
It's all about locality and scale...

And -
This is the biggest mystery of the inherent presence of gravity within EM Fields. When MASS is transformed is there a greater quantity of gravity that becomes inherent to higher frequency PHOTONS than to lower frequency photons? There are no calculations for this scenario, but my hunch is that it is photon flux density dependent & not photon frequency dependent, this is to say that the greater the flux density of an EM field the greater the gravity field at any frequency, be it at infrared or gamma.

I gave ya five for that one...

Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2016
Protoplasmix:
If Benni knew anything about the requisite maths/physics he would have asked me about topologies or manifolds
......no reason to ask you about the aforementioned requisites, you had already posted them as I quote them below:

Do you hope to get close enough to him some day Benni for him to grab your genitals? He's a SUPERstar now, Benni, he can do that, you'll let him, won't you?


stimoceiver
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2016
There are no such entities as "dark matter" nor "dark energy" outside the obscurantist fantasies of academia.

"Dark matter" is little more than an after-the-fact invention to justify why seemingly precise observations of objects at the vast distances of macrocosmic space fail to fit the models that are supposed to apply at those scales.
stimoceiver
2.2 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2016
Lets not actually examine the basis of the assumption that "red shift at the scale of intergalactic distance MUST be explained by the same kind of expansive motion that it should imply were it observed at terrestrial scales."

Lets all conveniently forget that it took the addition of first a "Cosmological Constant" and later "Hubble's Constant" - in other words, a fudge factor - for our models to have any kind of explanatory relevance whatsoever to astronomically observed red shift.

Totally irrelevant, then, that a finite but expanding universe born of a "big bang" just happens to neatly coincide with the bronze-age cosmological preconceptions of the Abrahamic faiths...
Benni
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2016
There are no such entities as "dark matter" nor "dark energy" outside the obscurantist fantasies of academia.
...........and academia need these to be unresolved issues so that the research funding from government grants doesn't dry up.

Expose the fantasies of their narratives & these charlatans will lose their paychecks, keeping the narratives of their fantasies alive keeps the paychecks rolling in.

hawkingsbrother
Nov 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gculpex
not rated yet Nov 13, 2016
Willful, knowledgeable support of Trump IS TREASON. This the greatest threat the USA has faced since the Civil War. Potentially a more dangerous threat. What you won't read in the news is that the entire Republican response to Trump is a charade intended to contain this threat without allowing the public or Trump to know about it. Republican base voters and Trump himself will most likely swallow that bait, so It may work, but that is not the best way to deal with this kind of threat. Trump is also very likely to end up removed from office, should the electoral college end up complicit with the Republican scheme.
All that is needed to distract Trump is to place a mirror in front of him, and all that is needed to placate his delusional supporters is the simplest of cons, as has been so amply demonstrated.

AMen!
gculpex
not rated yet Nov 13, 2016
@Benni

Expose the fantasies of their narratives & these charlatans will lose their paychecks, keeping the narratives of their fantasies alive keeps the paychecks rolling in.

You just supported one of the biggest charlatans of the planet for the most powerful position in the world.
Oh, and a racist serial rapist as well.
Just a reminder :) .

You forgot he was a porn star...
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2016
@Benni
as higher frequencies infer greater velocities in elementary particle "orbits" (the building blocks of photons), thus implying greater mass of the particles due to relativistic effects
......
What I don't see is the connection of electron velocity to frequency of photons, unless of course you're referring to the energy an electron gives up when it falls into a lower orbital position from a higher orbital position & kinetic energy is lost when it gives up a photon thus lowering the mass thus reducing the force of gravity within the atom? Is this what you're getting at?

No, its not. I am saying that photons actually consist of smaller particles which might be considered as orbiting a central point. The frequency of orbit is the frequency of the photon. The higher the frequency the tighter the orbit the greater the velocity of the constituent particles, hence greater apparent mass due to relatavistic effects.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2016
I am saying that photons actually consist of smaller particles which might be considered as orbiting a central point.
This works ONLY if EM itself is a particle type of mass, but not if it is a wave as it is generally assumed to be.

The frequency of orbit is the frequency of the photon
How do you define "frequency of orbit" around the "central point"?

The higher the frequency the tighter the orbit the greater the velocity of the constituent particles, hence greater apparent mass due to relatavistic effects
It is the case that increasing velocity results in increasing mass, but so far nothing else here is making much sense to me.

Seeker2
4 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2016
it appears that it is the velocity of photons that limits the velocity of gravitational attraction.
Newtonian gravity has nothing to do with photons or gravitinos. If it did DM would be visible.
Seeker2
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2016
The reason physicists know the velocity of gravity is the same as photons is the fact that large EM fields generate measurable gravity fields.
Large EM fields are generated by charged particles. Particles have mass which generates gravity and has nothing to do with photons.
Seeker2
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2016
This is the biggest mystery of the inherent presence of gravity within EM Fields.
The only gravity comes from the mass of the charged particles.
Seeker2
2.7 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2016
I'm not implying that PHOTONS (ENERGY) is in itself the CAUSE, rather that it is an EFFECT of the presence of MASS/ENERGY.
The PATH of the photon is affected by gravity similar to passing through a medium of different refractive index, which is what actually happens to spacetime in the presence of gravity. That is, gravity causes a change of refractive index in the medium. People see this as being due to curved spacetime since the photon path is curved. Worse yet they say that spacetime is flat because on the average light travels in straight lines. If it didn't the U would be accelerating.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2016
When MASS is transformed is there a greater quantity of gravity that becomes inherent to higher frequency PHOTONS than to lower frequency photons?
Gravity depends on the rest mass and not to the change in energy level of any of its electrons emitting a photon.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2016
Why gravity attaches itself to a photon & be carried with it is unknown,
So light passing through your glasses carries off the gravity of your lenses? Maybe that's why we need to get our glasses checked.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2016
Just a wild thought experiment, here. What if gravity itself, has "gravity"...?
Don't laugh. Gravitational attraction between galaxies may stretch the spacetime between them causing the filaments connecting galaxies. The way they detect these filaments is gravitational lensing.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2016
To the Casual Reader, above are the highlights of the article, this kind of funny farm science is the reason government needs to get out of funding research.
Apparently the government should be funding teaching basic physics. Along with critical thinking.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
I am kinda intrigued by the "Verlinde View", tho...:-)
Which, btw, can be considered using geometric relativism methodology...
Wow. I must have missed the lecture on geometric relativism methodology. I have heard something about the expansion of spacetime, however.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
There are no such entities as "dark matter" nor "dark energy" outside the obscurantist fantasies of academia.
Accounting for 95% of the energy budget of the U. Strange indeed.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2016
Totally irrelevant, then, that a finite but expanding universe born of a "big bang" just happens to neatly coincide with the bronze-age cosmological preconceptions of the Abrahamic faiths...
I have heard something about darkness over the face of the deep. It does seem to be getting more and more that way.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
There are no such entities as "dark matter" nor "dark energy" outside the obscurantist fantasies of academia.
Ignorance is bliss, or so I heard. It lets you spend more time in your happy place.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
So that again there is no actually hidden sector for dark matter, if you know what this stuff is actually about.
I'd say it's about gravity which you can feel but I don't think I have ever seen it.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
Sounds reasonable, or would if gravity existed as a force.....
Hello! So gravity does not exist as a force?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
(assuming photons have mass!).
Momentum, perhaps, but mass?
FredJose
1 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2016
Strange how this article seems to stand in isolation when we've just had another much more exciting theory on gravity that could explain dark matter:
http://phys.org/n...ark.html

The contrast between the two approaches is stark - the one depending on fantasy and the other working from basics up.
Remarkable.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
@Seeker2
Sounds reasonable, or would if gravity existed as a force.....
Hello! So gravity does not exist as a force?

Gravity is our perception of the effects of expansion. So no, gravity does not exist as a force.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
Gravity is our perception of the effects of expansion. So no, gravity does not exist as a force.
Expansion of what? Matter?
Benni
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
Sounds reasonable, or would if gravity existed as a force.....


Hello! So gravity does not exist as a force?


Gravity is our perception of the effects of expansion. So no, gravity does not exist as a force.


The only certainty physicists know about GRAVITY is that it is MASS DEPENDENT.

Einstein calculated the exact Lensing Effect of a photon passing the peripheral disc of the Sun. This lensing could not occur if EM is MASSLESS, it is not, or gravitational lensing that Einstein calculated in the Photon Deflection section of General Relativity could not occur.

Gravity cannot have an attraction to something inert to it, if there were a case for inertness of photons to gravity then gravitational lensing is impossible. Particles caught up in EM Fields have a measure of gravity apart from the gravity of an EM Field, but is not the explanation for the presence of gravity associated with EM Fields, such particles simply add to the total gravity.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
Gravity cannot have an attraction to something inert to it, if there were a case for inertness of photons to gravity then gravitational lensing is impossible.
Gravitational lensing is due to a change in the refractive index of the medium it travels through, not to the mass of the photon. That's how eyeglasses work.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
cont
Light dives inward to regions of less pressure from the forces of expansion. This occurs around regions of matter where there is less back pressure from the forces of spatial expansion. Hint: Because matter does not expand. Near-sighted people need more curvature from their glasses which is why their lenses are thicker. This has nothing to do with the curvature of spacetime as far as I can see, only its density or index of refraction of the medium.
Benni
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
Gravity cannot have an attraction to something inert to it, if there were a case for inertness of photons to gravity then gravitational lensing is impossible.
Gravitational lensing is due to a change in the refractive index of the medium it travels through, not to the mass of the photon. That's how eyeglasses work.


Einstein did not calculate Photon Deflection based on a "refractive index", he calculated it based on his Field Equations for gravity for which he calculated photon deflection within 0.02% margin of error......his actual calculations are found in the Photon Deflection section of General Relativity. By doing a simple search for his calculations in the Photon Deflection section of GR you will not see any calculations based on "refractive index" to which you make reference.

Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2016
By doing a simple search for his calculations in the Photon Deflection section of GR you will not see any calculations based on "refractive index" to which you make reference.
Right. This reasoning does not require GR, only an understanding of what Newtonian gravity really is. He figured out how to apply Newtonian gravity which is included in his field equations.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
cont
Refractive index is really a reference to lensing. The curvature of spacetime refers to its power to bend the path of light. An on the average flat spacetime has no curvature on the average.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2016
cont
Einstein's original intention was to incorporate Maxwell's equations into Newtonian gravity. And he finally got it right, apparently. I guess you can do this by assigning the photon an effective mass of h.nu/c*2. Just a guess however.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 14, 2016
cont
In other words you can talk about the curvature of spacetime but don't say spacetime is curved. Similar problem with saying spacetime is flat. Get my drift?
Benni
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
By doing a simple search for his calculations in the Photon Deflection section of GR you will not see any calculations based on "refractive index" to which you make reference.


Right. This reasoning does not require GR
...at least the Refractive Index part doesn't.

only an understanding of what Newtonian gravity really is. He figured out how to apply Newtonian gravity which is included in his field equations.
True. Don't forget that Schwarzschild was preparing his Radii Calculations just as Einstein was finishing up GR in 1915, but Schwarzschild could not put the gravity component to his Radii calculations until Einstein made public his Field Equations in 1916, six months subsequent to Einstein's release of GR is when Schwarzschild published his Radii computations.

I guess you can do this by assigning the photon an effective mass
....but look at how Einstein calculated Photon Deflection, he did not include it's almost incalculable minute mass.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2016
Einstein calculated the exact Lensing Effect of a photon passing the peripheral disc of the Sun. This lensing could not occur if EM is MASSLESS, it is not, or gravitational lensing that Einstein calculated in the Photon Deflection section of General Relativity could not occur.


Do you actually believe this nonsense yourself?
......the problem you're having comprehending anything here is that your level of education doesn't even reach that of 1st Semester Physics.....the reason you remain stuck at Phys 1, you're still trying to fake having gotten there & you're doing a miserable job trying to pull it off.

Benni
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
Yeah right. Stop spreading this nonsense.
Somebody should KICK your ass off this blog.
.......comparing the DOZENS of times your Comments have been deleted by the Moderator the past couple of weeks, as compared to the numbers of mine which is ZERO.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
Gravity cannot have an attraction to something inert to it, if there were a case for inertness of photons to gravity then gravitational lensing is impossible.
Gravitational lensing is due to a change in the refractive index of the medium it travels through, not to the mass of the photon. That's how eyeglasses work.

Agree.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2016
Gravity is our perception of the effects of expansion. So no, gravity does not exist as a force.
Expansion of what? Matter?

Yes.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 14, 2016
Gravity is our perception of the effects of expansion. So no, gravity does not exist as a force.
Expansion of what? Matter?

Yes.
I get it. Heat from the sun expands the mass of the photon causing an increase in the gravitational force to cause lensing. Right?
stimoceiver
2 / 5 (4) Nov 15, 2016
@Phys1
@stimoceiver
Note that the cause of cosmological redshift has been amply investigated for 90 years and the the Hubble constant is the just the proportionality between observed redshift and observed distance. No fudging.


"The cause of cosmological redshift has been amply investigated"? I urge you to demonstrate cosmological redshift - as opposed to the ordinary redshift observed at terrestrial and planetary scales - in a laboratory for our investigation. I'll wait.

The fact that "observed redshift" does not correlate to "observed distance" without the addition of a "constant" is not only a telling admission of the inadequacy of our earliest theories - it is inherently tautological.

We have no way to "observe distance" at cosmological scales besides the measurement of distance that we purport to deduce from the redshift itself.
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (3) Nov 15, 2016
Gravity cannot have an attraction to something inert to it, if there were a case for inertness of photons to gravity then gravitational lensing is impossible.
Gravitational lensing is due to a change in the refractive index of the medium it travels through, not to the mass of the photon. That's how eyeglasses work.

Agree.

In ANY textbook it says:
RI^2=1+polarisability.
There is no polarisation involved in gravitational lensing.
You don't know the first thing.
It is as if your shoes are five sizes too big so that you keep tripping.
:)

Wotz this fixation with shoe sizes? Just get yourself a bigger pair, you are way too big for normal shoes, as per http://www.idioms...ots.html
ellbeeyoo
5 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2016
I was mystified to see a discussion of "portals" and "hidden sectors" until I got to the part about them being part of String Theory. Then I realized why it sounded so ridiculous. String Theory; the theory about everything, that has been proven by nothing.
Benni
3 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2016
Yeah right. Stop spreading this nonsense.
Somebody should KICK your ass off this blog.


.......comparing the DOZENS of times your Comments have been deleted by the Moderator the past couple of weeks, as compared to the numbers of mine which is ZERO.


Dozens is way exaggerated like anything you say is out of proportion.
Phys.org, can you explain why this idiot is still here?
Because I can't.
Why, Benni, don't you read even the first 10 lines a Schwarzschild paper which is all over the internet and conclude that you have been talking nonsense in the past few years?
Narcissism?


.........and the ENTERTAINMENT continues.......I have Stumpo, Ira, & a couple others on Ignore, but you, not a chance I will do that, you are just way too much fun. How's that zany Zwicky alternate Universe lifestyle going for you? Found a real job yet outside that greasy burger flipper gig?

Benni
3 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2016
I get it. Heat from the sun expands the mass of the photon causing an increase in the gravitational force to cause lensing. Right?


What? How does expansion of a given quantity of mass cause an increase in gravitational force?

For example, if a given mass of liquid water is converted to steam, the given mass will expand by a ratio of about 1700:1 at atmospheric pressure. If you do this conversion in an enclosed chamber, then by how much does the attractive force of gravity within that chamber change? Simple answer, zero. It's zero because the given quantity of the mass has not changed, still the same number of atoms after the expansion as prior to the expansion, again demonstrating that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT not DENSITY DEPENDENT, there is no free lunch via Perpetual Motion here.

Reg Mundy
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 15, 2016
Gravity is our perception of the effects of expansion. So no, gravity does not exist as a force.
Expansion of what? Matter?

Yes.
I get it. Heat from the sun expands the mass of the photon causing an increase in the gravitational force to cause lensing. Right?

Wot? That's the daftest idea I've heard in a long time. You're not a Fizz sockpuppet, are you?
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 15, 2016
Gravity is our perception of the effects of expansion. So no, gravity does not exist as a force.

Wot? That's the daftest idea I've heard in a long time. You're not a Fizz sockpuppet, are you?
I'm just trying to figure out how gravity does not exist as a force.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2016
Gravity cannot have an attraction to something inert to it, if there were a case for inertness of photons to gravity then gravitational lensing is impossible.
Gravitational lensing is due to a change in the refractive index of the medium it travels through, not to the mass of the photon. That's how eyeglasses work.

Agree.

In ANY textbook it says:
RI^2=1+polarisability.
There is no polarisation involved in gravitational lensing.
You don't know the first thing.
It is as if your shoes are five sizes too big so that you keep tripping.
:)

Wotz this fixation with shoe sizes? Just get yourself a bigger pair, you are way too big for normal shoes, as per http://www.idioms...ots.html

It is a metaphor for you taking on something way bigger than you and it evokes the image of a clown.

Like I say, you are too big for your boots....
nikola_milovic_378
Nov 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Nov 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2016
@Fizz
You got colleagues? Surprising! Unless they all wear white coats and carry butterfly nets, of course, which would explain a lot. Do they humour you? Like, agree with you whatever you say? Perhaps pat you on the head occasionally? Is there a particularly nice one who only comes to see occasionally, asks you a lot of interesting questions and notes down your answers, then finally, sadly, shakes his head and says he will come and see you again when you are a bit better? Does he look a bit like Jack Nicolson?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2016
What? How does expansion of a given quantity of mass cause an increase in gravitational force?
For example, if a given mass of liquid water is converted to steam, the given mass will expand by a ratio of about 1700:1 at atmospheric pressure. If you do this conversion in an enclosed chamber, then by how much does the attractive force of gravity within that chamber change? Simple answer, zero. It's zero because the given quantity of the mass has not changed, still the same number of atoms after the expansion as prior to the expansion, again demonstrating that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT not DENSITY DEPENDENT, there is no free lunch via Perpetual Motion here.
Assuming you're talking to REG... He believes expansion causes the attractive force we call gravity. Via momentum, kinetics, whatever...
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 15, 2016
We have no way to "observe distance" at cosmological scales besides the measurement of distance that we purport to deduce from the redshift itself.
I thought they used triangulation.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 15, 2016
Assuming you're talking to REG... He believes expansion causes the attractive force we call gravity. Via momentum, kinetics, whatever...
Could it be the expansion of spacetime?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2016
Assuming you're talking to REG... He believes expansion causes the attractive force we call gravity. Via momentum, kinetics, whatever...
Could it be the expansion of spacetime?

What are you asking, exactly...?
Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2016
@Whydening Gob
What? How does expansion of a given quantity of mass cause an increase in gravitational force?
For example, if a given mass of liquid water is converted to steam, the given mass will expand by a ratio of about 1700:1 at atmospheric pressure. If you do this conversion in an enclosed chamber, then by how much does the attractive force of gravity within that chamber change? Simple answer, zero. It's zero because the given quantity of the mass has not changed, still the same number of atoms after the expansion as prior to the expansion, again demonstrating that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT not DENSITY DEPENDENT, there is no free lunch via Perpetual Motion here.
Assuming you're talking to REG... He believes expansion causes the attractive force we call gravity. Via momentum, kinetics, whatever...

Nah, nah, naah! There is no attractive force! (Apart from electical/magnetic/etc.). And momentum, kinetics, etc. have nothing to do with it.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2016
Questions questions questions.
You are just trying to find out any information about me that can serve to launch an ad hominem attack
@Phys1
it's called a redirection or red herring

if he redirects the conversation into a strawman argument where he can put the argument back in your corner and try to make you scramble for evidence then it works...

otherwise he would have to argue with evidence or something other than opinion like he attempts here: http://phys.org/n...ion.html

notice how he absolutely refuses to actually answer the point about his mass dependent expansion when i add detail that he can't explain?

so what does reg-troll do?
redirect with an ad hominem attack on intellect

all because he can't actually provide evidence for the claims (other than to read his/her book)
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2016
Why Reg and Benni do this is unclear
actually, i think some of it is clear

for a marketing/sales standpoint reg cant do any worse (check his sales stats)
- simply getting the book out there means he will get some poor sucker to buy it, even if only for kindling or to light fires

but reg wants money and legitimacy that he can't get in real life - so the fact that it's linked here on PO means some person not able to comprehend the difference between science and pseudoscience will assume it's legit

with benni it's more about age & neurosis
life-failures with the addition of narcissistic ego-driven Dunning-Kruger and his advanced geriatrics, also consider that he actually believes what he posts regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary

- you have a grouchy ignorant bigoted geriatric needing attention from somewhere but being socially inept, can only get said attention here

hence the grandiose claims without evidence
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2016
@Fizz
@Fizz
You got colleagues?

Questions questions questions.
You are just trying to find out any information about me that can serve to launch an ad hominem attack.
Boring.

I never said you were boring, although you are. I was just curious as to why your level of incompetence is asymptotically approaching that of Strumpo and Irate. There's no need to get all tetchy about your lack of qualifications, there are plenty of unqualified people who make good contributions to this site. Pity you're not one of them, never having contributed one single original idea to this site in a zillion postings....
Benni
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 16, 2016
@Fizz
You got colleagues?

Questions questions questions.
You are just trying to find out any information about me that can serve to launch an ad hominem attack.
Boring.
............he's directly related to zany Fritz Zwicky via one of his daughters, probably Barbarina. Check with a genealogy site.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 16, 2016
Assuming you're talking to REG... He believes expansion causes the attractive force we call gravity. Via momentum, kinetics, whatever...
Could it be the expansion of spacetime?

What are you asking, exactly...?
Could REG be right? If so do you think we'll ever live to see the day that science wakes up and smells the coffee? If so remember you heard it here first (at least I did).
Benni
3 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2016
@Fizz
You got colleagues?

Questions questions questions.
You are just trying to find out any information about me that can serve to launch an ad hominem attack.
Boring.
.......he's directly related to zany Fritz Zwicky via one of his daughters, probably Barbarina. Check with a genealogy site.


Reg:Here's a post from another website, seems this Christian Zwicky does some heavy duty defense of his zany grandfather....just an idea of places to start, then do Google searches & genealogy for anything to do with Zwicky's progeny......Phys 1 speaks far too fondly of the guy in personal terms to not be related to zany Fritz.

"As a scientific prophet, Fritz Zwicky will continue to suffer the literary assaults by self-serving authors, propelled by an embittered scientific establishment that continues the siege commensurate with their failure." (Christian Zwicky).http://www.topix....RKBV56BF
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 16, 2016
Assuming you're talking to REG... He believes expansion causes the attractive force we call gravity. Via momentum, kinetics, whatever...
Nah, nah, naah! There is no attractive force! (Apart from electical/magnetic/etc.). And momentum, kinetics, etc. have nothing to do with it.
Right. There is no attractive force. It's only the pressure of expanding spacetime. Matter locks in a fixed quantized amount of spacetime and gets the squeeze because it doesn't push back and expand like spacetime. Actually it's not rocket science.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2016
Nah, nah, naah! There is no attractive force! (Apart from electical/magnetic/etc.). And momentum, kinetics, etc. have nothing to do with it.

So... then what does?
Oh. I see seeker answered that for ya....
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2016
Assuming you're talking to REG... He believes expansion causes the attractive force we call gravity. Via momentum, kinetics, whatever...
Could it be the expansion of spacetime?

What are you asking, exactly...?
Could REG be right? If so do you think we'll ever live to see the day that science wakes up and smells the coffee? If so remember you heard it here first (at least I did).

As a POSSibility, it has as good a chance as anything else. As a PROBability, observations go against it. There's a simpler answer somewhere out there...
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 16, 2016
As a PROBability, observations go against it. There's a simpler answer somewhere out there...
Question is what observations. If observations go against it it's dead in the water.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2016
@pseudoscience regTROLL
never having contributed one single original idea to this site in a zillion postings....
you mean original like your unique pseudoscience that has no basis in reality or evidence?
http://matthewgoo...0pic.jpg

.

.

Could REG be right?
@seeker
no, he can't - for several reasons:
1- orbits of planetary bodies can't be explained by expansion unless there is gravity as well, making his "expansion" beliefs completely irrelevant

2- the mass issue i posted above

if you really want to read more about why he can't be "right" then read the arguments in this thread ( http://phys.org/n...ong.html ) from the following people:
thefurlong
antialias_physorg
gawad
maggnus

he even admits there is no evidence and it isn't' science
I cannot think of a way of "proving" my philosophy is correct
notice that reg also requires the use of gravity in his equations?

think on that a spell...
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Nov 16, 2016
As a POSSibility, it has as good a chance as anything else. As a PROBability, observations go against it. There's a simpler answer somewhere out there...
@Whyde
sorry but i am going to have to argue against this

as a possibility, faerie farts can cause unicorns to spawn from thin air too... but only in science fiction or someone's delusion

this is no different than the pseudoscience reg is arguing about - and it is pseudoscience
reg admits that himself
I cannot think of a way of "proving" my philosophy is correct
http://phys.org/n...ong.html

one thing that is clear: philosophy is absolutely *not* constrained by the scientific method, only by the charisma or strength of argument (like law - everything is subjective)

the one thing science can't be is subjective to each individual, like philosophy

when your primary argument is "buy my book" you can guarantee its a con
science would say "peer reviewed journal study"
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2016
Assuming you're talking to REG... He believes expansion causes the attractive force we call gravity. Via momentum, kinetics, whatever...
Nah, nah, naah! There is no attractive force! (Apart from electical/magnetic/etc.). And momentum, kinetics, etc. have nothing to do with it.
Right. There is no attractive force. It's only the pressure of expanding spacetime. Matter locks in a fixed quantized amount of spacetime and gets the squeeze because it doesn't push back and expand like spacetime. Actually it's not rocket science.

I guess you mean its that spacetime is not expanding as fast as mass, therefore we're pushed back towards the greater mass which is expanding faster?
I've got some swampland to sell ya, full of expanding GAS.... (methane)
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 17, 2016
@seeker
no, he can't - for several reasons:
1- orbits of planetary bodies can't be explained by expansion unless there is gravity as well, making his "expansion" beliefs completely irrelevant
Planetary bodies are under pressure from the expansion. The lowest energy state (least amount of tension) in the U is when the contact area between matter and the expanding spacetime is minimized. This happens when the orbiting bodies are brought into contact. That way they contact each other instead of spacetime. The preferred configuration is then spherical. That's why we have spherical planets. And black holes. Eventually spacetime will configure all matter so it falls into one giant black hole. So eventually we will all end up in the same place. Cheers.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 17, 2016
cont
Actually when falling into black holes you don't fall in immediately but you go into orbit around the black hole. Here you may remain indefinitely. It's what they call limbo. Maybe purgatory would be a better word. And the fire that you encounter in your excursion is hotter than H. Actually you may get lucky and get temporary relief by being spit out in one of the black hole jets.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 17, 2016
cont
Another way of looking at this expansion thing is that given any two bodies in spacetime there is more expanding spacetime outside the region of the two bodies than in the region between the two bodies. The U being a pretty big place the bodies will soon feel the squeeze from the denser spacetime way out there. This is because bodies displace spacetime and reduce the density of the expanding medium.
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2016
@Fizz
@Fizz
@Fizz
You got colleagues?

Questions questions questions.
You are just trying to find out any information about me that can serve to launch an ad hominem attack.
Boring.

I never said you were boring,

No you did not.
It was _I_ who said that _you_ are boring.
Read me post again.

Sorry, I just thought you had signed off the comment as "Boring". I should have known that your humility index was far too low for self disparagement. Pity, it would have been the only thing you have ever posted that I agree with.
Meanwhile, is there any chance that you could post something relevant to this thread, instead of dribbling insults to all and sundry on your hate list?
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2016
Hi Benni
.......he's directly related to zany Fritz Zwicky via one of his daughters, probably Barbarina. Check with a genealogy site.
Yeah, probably. But I really don't want to waste my time finding out more about him, I already know he's a bit dim, hasn't any qualifications, doesn't understand simple physics and has a chip on his shoulder bigger than his feet (which are too big for his boots....). I bet he doesn't understand that, if the Earth is ten times the size of the moon, and you double the size of the Earth and the Moon, the Earth is still ten times the size of the moon - I've explained this to Strumpo dozens of times but he simply can't comprehend this simple fact. And trying to explain how expansion causes orbits! Its like getting a mollusc to do algebra!
Ah well, we can only do our best to enlighten the ignorant.
Reg Mundy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2016
@Widening Gob
Assuming you're talking to REG... He believes expansion causes the attractive force we call gravity. Via momentum, kinetics, whatever...
Could it be the expansion of spacetime?

What are you asking, exactly...?
Could REG be right? If so do you think we'll ever live to see the day that science wakes up and smells the coffee? If so remember you heard it here first (at least I did).

As a POSSibility, it has as good a chance as anything else. As a PROBability, observations go against it. There's a simpler answer somewhere out there...

C'mon, WG, quote an observation! There are many "observations" which go against current mainstream theories of gravity, but NONE I know of that go against expansion theory. PLEASE, PLEASE, point one out!
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2016
@Streaker 2
Assuming you're talking to REG... He believes expansion causes the attractive force we call gravity. Via momentum, kinetics, whatever...
Nah, nah, naah! There is no attractive force! (Apart from electical/magnetic/etc.). And momentum, kinetics, etc. have nothing to do with it.
Right. There is no attractive force. It's only the pressure of expanding spacetime. Matter locks in a fixed quantized amount of spacetime and gets the squeeze because it doesn't push back and expand like spacetime. Actually it's not rocket science.

There ain't no such thing as "spacetime", its an imaginary concept. Its like mixing apples and frogs. Space is defined by matter with three dimensions, time is a subjective phenomenon the passage of which we "measure" by the positions of matter.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2016
@Streaker 2
...There ain't no such thing as "spacetime", its an imaginary concept. Its like mixing apples and frogs. Space is defined by matter with three dimensions, time is a subjective phenomenon the passage of which we "measure" by the positions of matter.
Space is to spacetime as pictures are to movies, except in our case the movies are running in two directions simultaneously on the same screen. Time expands in 2 directions just like the dimensions of space. The laws of physics works in backwards time just as in forward time. Let the movies roll.
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2016
@Streaker 2
@Streaker 2
...There ain't no such thing as "spacetime", its an imaginary concept. Its like mixing apples and frogs. Space is defined by matter with three dimensions, time is a subjective phenomenon the passage of which we "measure" by the positions of matter.
Space is to spacetime as pictures are to movies, except in our case the movies are running in two directions simultaneously on the same screen. Time expands in 2 directions just like the dimensions of space. The laws of physics works in backwards time just as in forward time. Let the movies roll.

Sooo, time is quantum (I agree). But I believe that our experience of time is subjective due to the path dictated thru chaos (the random "pictures") by the laws of physics. Yup, let the movies roll! (I like that...).
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2016
@bulschott
You are respnding to two different commenters at once here. I'll reply to the first paragraph - welcome to the QTA (Quantum Time Army).
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2016
@Fizz
Ah, I sense a lightening of your mood! You actually cracked a funny that wasn't meant to be offensive (well, not too offensive, as you obviously were'nt serious.....I hope...).
Keep it up! I'll not make cracks at you while you behave reasonably, and that doesn't mean I want to try to stop you making LOGICAL and POLITE objections to anything I say. Welcome to polite society....
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 17, 2016
Time expands in 2 directions just like the dimensions of space.
Can you please define how time can "expand"? What is the "second direction" ?
Check out http://phys.org/n...html#jCp - Muller's new idea: Time is expanding because space is expanding.
We have only ever witnessed time as progression of events in one "direction". Unless I missed where we documented all events that occurred in a single time frame "unhappening" simultaneously...which is the only way I can see a "second direction" for time...
You don't reverse the arrows of time, at least in the macro world. They both start from the same origin and move and keep moving in opposite directions. As I see it we observe both arrows of time moving simultaneously in the same space. But this requires viewing antimatter as normal matter moving in reverse time.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 18, 2016
time is a subjective phenomenon the passage of which we "measure" by the positions of matter.

Perfect.
Without time you're not going to be measuring anything. I hope this subjective idea comes from philosophy or somewhere outside of physics. It has been around and popular since as long as I can remember. :(
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 18, 2016
@Streaker 2
...But I believe that our experience of time is subjective due to the path dictated thru chaos (the random "pictures") by the laws of physics.
Is the uncertainty principle one of the laws of physics? If so I don't see how it can be leading us down any path dictated thru chaos.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 18, 2016
cont
Come to think of it, give me any law of physics involving time. How can it work if time is subjective?
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2016
@Squeaker 2
cont
Come to think of it, give me any law of physics involving time. How can it work if time is subjective?

That's a good question! Consider this:- if time is something we measure by the positions of matter (which it is), then theoretically all equations involving time could be re-written with matter positions replacing time - time could be dispensed with entirely. I leave it to you to try this, as my mathematical skills are inadequate for this task. I expect Einstein would also struggle....
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 19, 2016
Consider this:- if time is something we measure by the positions of matter (which it is), then theoretically all equations involving time could be re-written with matter positions replacing time - time could be dispensed with entirely. I leave it to you to try this, as my mathematical skills are inadequate for this task. I expect Einstein would also struggle....
So replace the number of seconds by the number of revolutions around a rubidium nucleus, or whatever your atomic clock is made out of, and multiply by the right scale factor to relate this to the number of revolutions around the nucleus made while the earth makes one orbit around the sun. No problem. Just plug and chug.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 19, 2016
Without time you're not going to be measuring anything.
There are many measurements which are not time dependent, measurement of a mass that does not interact with anything remains the same value, regardless of "when" it is measured.
Yes, I guess. But regardless of when it is measured you have to count the number of pounds or grams or whatever. Any measurement requires counting something either by machine or visually. Counting takes time. If you don't believe me try it.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 19, 2016
The subjective component springs from human perception.
I guess. If everyone agrees on the measurement that makes it objective, I suppose. But to get a Nobel prize you have to prove something to within 5 sigma certainty. I guess that makes it objective too. At least in my perception.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 19, 2016
The arrow pointing towards the past is not a direction that can be taken.
Right. But actually there are two arrows pointing to the past - one for forward time and one for reverse time. Both arrows pointing to the origin of time. In either case you can't go back without reversing the expansion of space.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 19, 2016
Time does not move in 2 directions.
I'd say time does not move in any direction like any of the spatial dimensions. It all expands but as a whole its midpoint is fixed.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 19, 2016
Events of the past are fixed, the future is fluid and undetermined until it happens at which point the events become unchangeable.
I think so.
Muller can have all of the ideas about the bond between time and space he wants, but nothing can change the way time passes.
I guess if you're not watching it can pass you right by. Speaking of which Muller may have missed the point that anything that expands has to expand in at least 2 directions unless it's blocked by some kind of wall. But I don't think time is.
What we determine is a second, will always be a second, no matter how many events you cram into it, and once past those events are unchangeable.
Maybe except for the leap years (hate to be a nit picker).
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2016
C'mon, WG, quote an observation! There are many "observations" which go against current mainstream theories of gravity, but NONE I know of that go against expansion theory. PLEASE, PLEASE, point one out!

Your "observations" going against current gravitational theory are subjective.
I'd say FIRST provide a REAL observation FOR expansion theory (which is pretty much only a theory in your own book). IE - why do people gain weight as they age...? Shouldn't they be losing it?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2016
@Widening Gob
C'mon, WG, quote an observation! There are many "observations" which go against current mainstream theories of gravity, but NONE I know of that go against expansion theory. PLEASE, PLEASE, point one out!

Your "observations" going against current gravitational theory are subjective.
I'd say FIRST provide a REAL observation FOR expansion theory (which is pretty much only a theory in your own book). IE - why do people gain weight as they age...? Shouldn't they be losing it?

Hey, WG, in your previous comment, you said:-
"As a POSSibility, it has as good a chance as anything else. As a PROBability, observations go against it. There's a simpler answer somewhere out there..."
I ask you for one instance of these observations, and you duck the bullet asking ME for an observation! Put your money where your mouth is!
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2016
@pseudoscience-regTROLL
I ask you for one instance of these observations, and you duck the bullet asking ME for an observation
and i've been asking you for evidence other than "read your book" for far longer...

why are you still ducking that one?
more to the point: here is a thread where the best evidence you gave is the following quote
I go to a great deal of trouble to write all this down in a book, and so do many other people. I ain't gonna spend hours doing it here. Read a f******g book
http://phys.org/n...ong.html

you can't produce evidence from your book

you can't produce evidence from a peer reviewed source

we don't want to make you rich so you can present us with yet more non-peer reviewed claims

.

the above is called evidence of pseudoscience - you post pseudoscience and defend it with claims - no evidence

therefore you're posting religion - not science
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2016
Hey, WG, in your previous comment, you said:-
"As a POSSibility, it has as good a chance as anything else. As a PROBability, observations go against it. There's a simpler answer somewhere out there..."
I ask you for one instance of these observations, and you duck the bullet asking ME for an observation! Put your money where your mouth is!

Earth+moon, atmosphere and orbiting debris. Sun+planets+their moons and - orbiting debris...
Any creature not having ability to utilize an atmosphere via aero-dynamics falls toward the larger gravitational body.
Ever drop something on your foot?
Ever fall down the stairs?
Did your Mom drop you on your head? Or was that a horse that kicked you...?

Your turn.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2016
@Widening Gob
I don't believe it! (as per Victor Meldrew)
You quote "observations" purely concerning "orbits", which everybody except Strumpy accepts are a consequence of expansion (not gravity!)...you are not a Strumpy sock-puppet, are you?
Then the old chestnut about dropping something on your foot (no, the something doesn't drop, the expanding Earth forces your foot up to meet it).
Finally, you revert to insults! You are Strumpy!
In that case, your answer to the flying creatures is that they are supported by cosmic fairies...I think that's about the level of scientific answer you are looking for.
Well, that's my final turn, don't bother replying.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 23, 2016
...the expanding Earth forces your foot up to meet it).
I don't think matter expands. Spacetime expands. Including your foot there is less of it density-wise than above your head. So you and earth get the squeeze.
del2
5 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2016
"orbits", which everybody except Strumpy accepts are a consequence of expansion (not gravity!)

Everybody? Nobody that I'm aware of (except you).
Well, that's my final turn, don't bother replying.

Sic transit gloria, Mundy.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 23, 2016
"orbits", which everybody except Strumpy accepts are a consequence of expansion (not gravity!)

Everybody? Nobody that I'm aware of (except you).
Gravity is a consequence of expansion, as I see it. And matter doesn't expand. So it gets the squeeze. OBTW space does not expand. Expansion requires time. Spacetime expands. So get it off my spell checker please. :(

Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 23, 2016
cont
Pictures don't talk either. Unless you're Harry Potter of course.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2016
@Widening Gob
I don't believe it! (as per Victor Meldrew)

Your misuse of my screen name is .. insulting.
No idea who victor meldrew is. Don't care, either
You quote "observations" purely concerning "orbits", which everybody except Strumpy accepts are a consequence of expansion (not gravity!)...

Like - who? They are a consequence of rotation, driven by - gravity (attraction)
Then the old chestnut about dropping something on your foot (no, the something doesn't drop, the expanding Earth forces your foot up to meet it).

So... every time something randomly drops around the planet, the earth expands up?!? Guess that explains hills and mountains then, eh?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2016
Finally, you revert to insults! You are Strumpy!

Wasn't an insult - just looking for an explanation to your inexplicable condition...
and - how the Cap'n communicates is his business, not mine, to speculate on...
In that case, your answer to the flying creatures is that they are supported by cosmic fairies...I think that's about the level of scientific answer you are looking for.

I guess you missed the part about "aero-dynamics" in my comment.
Well, that's my final turn, don't bother replying.

That's the cheap way to avoid providing any substantive evidence regarding your "expansion theory".
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2016
Gravity is a consequence of expansion, as I see it. And matter doesn't expand. So it gets the squeeze. OBTW space does not expand. Expansion requires time. Spacetime expands. So get it off my spell checker please. :(

What?!?
Ahhh... you apparently are enjoying the lovely consequence of herbal intake...
Matter doesn't expand, neither does space...
For that matter, neither does time (it just adds). They all simply - move.
Couldn't that mean, then, that "expansion" might just be a consequence of gravitional influences? What we see as "expansion" simply be a rotational motion?
Seems pretty common sense doesn't it?
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 23, 2016
Matter doesn't expand, neither does space...
Ever hear of Edwin Hubble? Saul Perlmutter?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2016
@WG (notice I am not using Widening Gob, seeing as you took it as an insult....)
OK, you want to know how expansion causes orbits.
Here's an explanation that completely fails for anyone with an IQ below 10 (e.g. Strumpy, Irate, etc.)
Take a piece of paper (A4), a pencil, a ruler and a compass (the sort you draw circles with, not the ones with the little pointer that tries to point to magnetic North, as I assume Strumpy did...)
Slighty left and below centre, draw a circle radius 2 cm. Draw a vertical line thru' its centre, measure 10cms above its centre and make that the centre of a new circle radius 1 cm. Where the vertical line cuts the big circle, put an X (that's you, the observer).
Now, lets pretend the big circle is the Earth and the small circle is the Moon. Draw a horizontal line 10 cms long ending in the centre of the small vertical. Make it into an arrow to represent the apparent motion of the Moon at the instance in time.
tbc.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2016
contd.
Now, you are standing on Earth with the Moon directly above your head.
A quantum of time passes. To make everything simple, we will say everything doubles due to expansion (obviously, it doesn't really...).
Using the centre of the big circle, draw another circle, radius 4 cm, representing the Earth after one quantum of time. Mark a Y where the vertical line crosses the new circle. Again, using the centre of the big circle, draw an arc radius 20 cms to the upper right. From the centre of the small circle, draw a horizontal line 20 cms long to intersect the arc. At the intersection point, draw circle radius 2 cms.
Now, you (the observer) without apparently moving (we neglect rotation of Earth and Moon for simplicity) are at Y. You are twice as big. The Earth is twice as big. The Moon is twice as big. It is twice as far away. You observe the same old size Moon from the same old size Earth (to you, the same old size observer apparently).
tbc

tbc
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2016
contd.
The only difference is, the Moon has moved round on its orbit.
Now draw an 20cm. arrow ending at the centre of the (new) Moon at 90% to the line connecting it to the Earth. (the new apparent velocity of the Moon).
Now, take a new piece of paper (should have mentioned landscape orientation) and draw the (new) Earth and the (new) Moon, leaving the observer vertically above the centre of the Earth, but, to make it easy on yourself, scale everything down by half.
Repeat the exercise as before using the new positions of the Earth/Moon.
Keep doing this until the Moon is again directly above the observer.
Congratulations! A bit rough and ready and out of scale, but you have just shown how expansion in quantum time causes orbits. I won't bother you with the maths.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 24, 2016
...you have just shown how expansion in quantum time causes orbits. I won't bother you with the maths.
That should make an interesting video. I'll stick to expansion in spacetime though. Easier to visualize.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2016
Hi Reg. :)

Mostly reading-only again today, but I have a minute to ask question(s) re your above Moon Orbit scenario/explanation according to your expansion theory; ie...

How do you compensate for the expansion 'along the orbital path'?

Such 'expansion', specifically IN BOTH TANGENTIAL directions to orbital 'circle', would mean that the Moon would be effectively traversing ever-increasing orbital-path distances; but your theory has no mechanism to 'accelerate' the Moon's ORBITAL SPEED to keep it at same relative distance from Earth center despite 'space itself' between Earth-Moon also 'expanding' as per your theory?

Speaking of mechanisms etc: can you also explain what the mechanism for the space/matter 'expansion' itself is; whence the energy for such 'expansion' comes from, and in what form?

I'll look in again in a couple days if I can for your reply. Thanks. :)

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2016
@RCYou would have to appreciate the nature of relative velocity and momentum to see how velocity expands along with everything else. I can't explain all that here, it's taken me three comments just to do a rough-and-ready orbits scenario. (incidentally, please bear in mind that the example is grossly out of scale, quantums of time are very, very small, and the movement of the Moon between quantums is not discernible to us as we experince time as continuous, whereas in reality each quantum of time is a distinct situation and our "time" consists of a sequence of quantums which, in reality, ARE NOT CONTIGUOUS - that's why a photon passing from A to B maybe passes thru' every point in our universe on its way..).
"Space" does not expand, it is empty (or may be considered so) so cannot do anything.
Expansion consumes no energy, it is more a case of matter falling apart.
I too am running short of time, so if you have any more questions please read"The Situation Of Gravity"free on Kindle
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 25, 2016
"Space" does not expand, it is empty (or may be considered so) so cannot do anything.
So where did Hubble go wrong?
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 25, 2016
BTW, some good ideas at http://phys.org/n..._1.html. For rather involved reasons I don't think matter and antimatter are repulsive, I think they only respond to spacetime expansion in a slightly different way, antimatter being affected less than matter. This is going to make it really tricky to prove or disprove. Probably not in my lifetime.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 25, 2016
"Space" does not expand, it is empty (or may be considered so)
So what happened to all that dark energy out there?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2016
@regTROLL
you posted this in another thread becuase you need attention obviously, so i will address it
I can't explain all that here, it's taken me three comments just to do a rough-and-ready orbits scenario
1- you still can't explain it

2- you still didn't explain orbits
2a - considering we actually know a little something about velocity and momentum, and that if an object is traveling without a force acting upon it, then it will follow a path that is straight, not curved, then you abjectly failed to explain anything at all

3- you are also completely debunked here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

4- publishing a book isn't the same thing as presenting evidence or passing peer review. you have yet to be able to: make a prediction, falsify, test, experiment or validate your delusional crackpot claims

5 -the evidence supporting relativity can be found by searching "relativity experiment" on google scholar

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2016
@regTROLL cont'd
I won't bother you with the maths.
because you don't have any to share?

but you think people are gonna accept your claims simply because you can draw circles with a compass? (and you can't draw circles with a navigational compass unless it's circular, ya moron... but then again, you don't strongly associate with reality, so i can see how you didn't know that one)

i can debunk your post easily:
1- what keeps the moon mass object orbiting the other planet mass object, which in turn orbits the sun mass object?

2- http://phys.org/n...ong.html

3- where is the peer reviewed reputable journal papers with the second party validation

considering you can't actually answer #1, there wasn't a need for the rest, but at least i can provide evidence that directly refutes your claims whereas you can only yell and say "read my book"

ROTFLMFAO
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2016
@Strumpy
I see you have got around to responding to my explanation regarding orbits etc.
Only took you three days thinking about it. Even a moron could understand it in half an hour, you take three days and STILL don't get it, do you?
I long ago gave up trying to get you to understand simple basic physics, and put you on my ignore list. Unfortunately, I was persuaded by the example of others posting on PO who didn't put you on ignore despite having an even lower opinion of you than I did to take you off my list, give you a second chance in the hope you might have grown up. However, you are still the same moronic stupid pig you always were, so I'm putting you back on the list. (So don't bother replying.)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2016
@reg the pseudoscience troll
I see you have got around to responding to my explanation
it took a while to stop laughing
there was no explanation anyway. you actually say the moon moves around in it's orbit... but in no way, shape or form do you explain what super magical power your expansion has to attract objects like the moon to keep them from flying off into straight paths!
so I'm putting you back on the list. (So don't bother replying.)
i don't care if you ignore me or not

i will still post the evidence that proves you are a crackpot, like this: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

just because you can publish your OPINION in a book doesn't mean you are presenting a scientific theory, let alone evidence for your conjectures about gravity

I long ago gave up trying to get you to understand simple basic physics
Even a moron could understand it in half an hour, you take three days and STILL don't get it, do you?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2016
@regTROLL the idiot pseudoscience illiterate poster

if T=time
AND
if x is object 1, with a mass of 100KG
and y is object 2 with a mass of 200KG
and expansion is mass dependent & apparent gravity is increased velocity due to expansion & mass dependency

now, if at the beginning of the experiment or observation, size[x] = size[y]
but mass[x]=/=mass[y]
AND
if expansion is mass dependent
THEN
mass[x]T and mass[y]T cannot be equivalent

therefore the two initial same sized objects cannot still be the same size after time elapses if expansion is mass dependent (per your claims) and gravity is apparent only due to mass dependent expansion

so size MUST also increase as it's speed increases to give the "impression of gravity" per the mass dependent criteria

this was explained to you already multiple times on this site by everyone
it's a simple proof that your expansion fails
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2016
@regTROLL the idiot pseudoscience illiterate poster
this is also substantiated by your own claims
BHs can only expand at light speed, and so effectively "drop out" of our universe as they no longer obey the laws of physics...
http://phys.org/n...ong.html

so if we don't feel gravity, but rather feel "acceleration", then:
1- there can't be a constant acceleration per your claims
2- there can't be mass dependent acceleration

so your own argument contradicts itself
but even ignoring that part, you state higher mass feels like higher gravity because of the higher acceleration, but we just showed where that can't be the case above, as higher mass would be a testable observation between same sized objects of wildly differing mass, like 2 separate 1m diameter sphere's made of styrofoam & lead

you can't actually refute it,here or in the above link where you also said
I look forward to saying "I told you so" in a year or two's time
well?
LOL
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 28, 2016
BHs can only expand at light speed,...
I thought they expanded by sucking up matter or merging with other BHs. Same difference I guess.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2016
BHs can only expand at light speed,...
I thought they expanded by sucking up matter or merging with other BHs. Same difference I guess.

The surface of the BH cannot expand more rapidly than light speed in our universe, so expansion of matter is prevented, Time is dependent on the expansion of matter in our universe, and so the matter in the BH effectively leaves our universe.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 28, 2016
The surface of the BH cannot expand more rapidly than light speed in our universe,,,
Yes except at the BB.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2016
@Streakertoo
At the BB time didn't exist, so the term "light speed" was meaningless.
In any case, our universe is just a black hole in another universe.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 29, 2016
@Streakertoo
At the BB time didn't exist, so the term "light speed" was meaningless.
In any case, our universe is just a black hole in another universe.
So time occurred right after the BB. I see.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2016
regTROLL
In any case, our universe is just a black hole in another universe.
except

http://math.ucr.e...rse.html

more to the point: we've also already established why your own delusional ranting about "no gravity" and "it's expansion" are pure balderdash with a touch of self-promoting ignorance and Dunning-Kruger above

in fact, the simple fact that two same sized objects with wildly different masses can be found to be the same size with the passing of time is all that is needed to prove your arguments wrong

pseudoscience belongs in the religious discussions, not in a science argument - this is why you're being ignored by any real scientists and why you're arguing your point here instead of before physicists and peer review boards

LOL

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2016
@Streakertoo
At the BB time didn't exist, so the term "light speed" was meaningless.
In any case, our universe is just a black hole in another universe.
So time occurred right after the BB. I see.

Well, not quite. Time is our subjective experience of the expansion of matter, so time started after matter was formed. (I use the word "after" for want of a better expression). Photons are a form of matter. Let there be light!
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2016
Time is our subjective experience of the expansion of matter,
Where did this idea come from? Or did you just make it up?
Photons are a form of matter.
No mass, but I guess that doesn't matter.
Let there be light!
And there was light. And time. And the BB.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2016
Where did this idea come from? Or did you just make it up?
@seeker
it is entirely made up
if you're asking looking for a logical replacement for anything science, you're talking to the wrong person, and that can be demonstrated by my explanations above regarding his delusional beliefs

and if you don't like me, that is fine too, because plenty of people who are far better versed in physics then reg debunked him and his beliefs here:
http://phys.org/n...ong.html

PS - i don't know if you were trying for puns (and comedy) above but it sure was funny - ya get a 5 from me just because it made me crack up!
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 01, 2016
@RM
...time is a subjective phenomenon the passage of which we "measure" by the positions of matter.
How can something we measure be subjective?
Reg Mundy
not rated yet Dec 02, 2016
@StreakerToo
@RM

...time is a subjective phenomenon the passage of which we "measure" by the positions of matter.

How can something we measure be subjective?

That's why "measure" is in italics.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 02, 2016
@RM


...time is a subjective phenomenon the passage of which we "measure" by the positions of matter.

How can something we measure be subjective?

That's why "measure" is in italics.
So position is a "measure"?

del2
5 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2016
That's why "measure" is in italics.

Well, I searched right through the article and all the comments and I couldn't find "measure" in italics anywhere. And I don't see how that statement answers the question anyway; either we measure the passage of time or we don't. And if we do, it's not subjective.
Reg Mundy
not rated yet Dec 03, 2016
@Streakertoo
@RM


...time is a subjective phenomenon the passage of which we "measure" by the positions of matter.

How can something we measure be subjective?

That's why "measure" is in italics.
So position is a "measure"?


"Position" can only be relative to matter. Our perception of matter is relative, so position is subjective.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (1) Dec 03, 2016
@del2
That's why "measure" is in italics.

Well, I searched right through the article and all the comments and I couldn't find "measure" in italics anywhere. And I don't see how that statement answers the question anyway; either we measure the passage of time or we don't. And if we do, it's not subjective.

Of course its subjective, the passage of time is dependent on the observer. We perceive the passage of time by observing the expansion of matter. We "perceive" the effect of matter expanding, whereas in reality we are moving thru' a chaotic arrangement of fundamental particles following a path dictated by our laws of physics, each quantum of time being a snapshot of the particle arrangement.
I appreciate this is a difficult scenario to absorb from scratch, you need to take it step by step as per "The Situation of Gravity", free on Kindle.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 03, 2016
@Reg
Of course its subjective, the passage of time is dependent on the observer.

Electrons go around in atoms whether we observe them or not.
We perceive the passage of time by observing the expansion of matter.
I don't think atoms expand as electrons move around in their orbits.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2016
@Reg
Of course its subjective, the passage of time is dependent on the observer.

Electrons go around in atoms whether we observe them or not.
We perceive the passage of time by observing the expansion of matter.
I don't think atoms expand as electrons move around in their orbits.

Both the electrons and atoms are expanding.
In nature, orbits decay or expand, they are not stable. E.g. the Moon is gradually leaving the Earth, BHs spiral into each other, etc.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2016
@Reg
...the Moon is gradually leaving the Earth,
Yes, and guess what. The moon is coming back. And you don't want to be around when it does.
BHs spiral into each other, etc.
In which case the orbits contract and disprove your silly nonsense.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 04, 2016
Trump is antiscience just like...
In denial. A dog whistle to his base.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2016
@Reg
...the Moon is gradually leaving the Earth,
Yes, and guess what. The moon is coming back. And you don't want to be around when it does.
BHs spiral into each other, etc.
In which case the orbits contract and disprove your silly nonsense.

Doesn't matter whether orbits are expanding or contracting, the point is they are not stable. Twit! Exchange is terminated.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.