21

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 26/06/2022 14:14:37 »

What dark matter formula are you talking about? Scientists do indeed have ideas about what dark matter could be: axions, sterile neutrinos, WIMPS, and primordial black holes for example.

22

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 25/06/2022 20:19:18 »

Don't you agree that the dark matter idea can't offer a solution for the galactic rotation curve in the Bar segment?

No, I don't agree.

If you think that the gravity is not good enough for the Bar, then how the bar really works based on your understanding?

Gravity is good enough if you are including the gravity from dark matter.

If you try to break down the temporary structure of the spiral arm in the galactic disc, then all the stars in that arm would be kicked out from the galactic disc.

The fact that the structure is temporary means that it does, eventually, break down. Yet those stars aren't kicked out from the galactic disk.

Nothing would help. Not even the dark matter imagination.

The extra gravity contributed by dark matter absolutely would help. It's that extra gravity that keeps those fast-moving stars from getting away from the galaxy.

Again, do you mean that there is a problem in the bar or in the galactic disc?

Neither. It's your misunderstanding that is the problem.

But so far you have no real solution for the Bar rotation curve problem?

What "bar rotation curve problem"? I think you are mixing up two different issues.

As the stars are connected to the spiral arm, then their orbital velocity is dictated by the orbital velocity of the arm itself.

Which, in turn, is dictated by gravity (hence why I mentioned Kepler's third law).

The dark matter idea CAN'T explain this phenomenon!!!

Because...?

Why do we prefer the dark matter idea that can only solve 25% of the problems while the gravity of the spiral arms can solve 100% of the problems?

Where did you get those numbers from?

Please be aware that at some point those far end stars in the spiral arms must be disconnected from the arm.
The dark matter idea can't also give an answer for that

It was never supposed to.

Therefore, the only way for a star to keep itself in the galactic disc is by holding the spiral arm.

And that holding is done by gravity. The gravity produced by normal matter isn't enough. Hence why we need dark matter.

23

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 25/06/2022 17:51:58 »

There is no violation of any physical law by the Bar (including the Kepler's third law).

If it's orbiting faster than Kepler's third law allows, then it is.

It is specifically stated: "their mutual attraction due to gravity makes the bar slow down and the spiral speed up."

The bar contains stars too. If the bar is slowing down, then the stars in the bar are also slowing down. So you have some stars speeding up and others slowing down. So overall, there is no average gain in velocity. If there is no average gain in velocity, then the anomalous galactic rotation curve remains unresolved.

Even if it was true that they somehow sped up and retained that increased orbital speed indefinitely, then they should no longer be able to maintain an orbit around the Milky Way galaxy because they are going too quickly to be retained by the Milky Way's gravity. That was the whole problem from the beginning. The stars in the outer regions of the galaxy are orbiting too fast for the amount of gravity that the Milky Way should be producing if there was only normal matter present. The fact that the galaxy has kept these super-fast stars demonstrates the need for extra gravity that is caused by something we can't see: i.e. dark matter.

Hence the same gravity force that holds the stars in the bar arm and in the spiral arm as one connected temporary structure, also keeps each arm as a temporary structure.

"Temporary" being the key word here. What do you think happens when they are no longer one structure?

24

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 25/06/2022 08:08:34 »

The bar isn't some kind of magical propulsion system that lets stars violate Kepler's third law.

25

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 25/06/2022 05:32:07 »

Is it clear?

Clearly wrong. Orbital velocity is determined by gravity.

26

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 24/06/2022 17:48:07 »

It is stated that: "the result of the simulations is very satisfactory"

So if you think that simulation is evidence, then that means a simulation of dark matter could constitute evidence too, right?

Why do we continue to hold the dark matter imagination?

The galactic rotation curve anomaly.

Why can't we accept the simple observation and the mathematical simulation validation that the Bar is used as a funnel to drift stars from the Bulge directly to the spiral arms?

Because the simulation being correct wouldn't eliminate the need for dark matter. The anomalous galactic rotation curve still needs to be explained.

Why do we insist to believe in something that we can't see feel or smell?

You can't see, feel or smell the radio waves that are flitting through the air either. Do you disbelieve in those?

27

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 22/06/2022 20:55:28 »

So who can explain the functionality of the Bar in the spiral galaxy?

Probably an astrophysicist. If you can find one, you can ask them.

28

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 22/06/2022 16:48:28 »

So how our scientists claim that they know how the spiral galaxy works while they don't have a basic clue how he Bar segment works?

You think just because I don't know the answer that literally no one knows the answer? I'm not an astrophysicist.

29

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 22/06/2022 06:54:27 »

I don't know if it can be said that all the stars are associated all at once. It's probably not that simple.

As for the pattern you speak of below 3 kpc, I don't know the reason for that.

30

New Theories / Re: Did we really never observed white holes ?

« on: 21/06/2022 23:21:17 »

Did you know that if you fall into a black hole if you try to descelerate you accelerate instead ?

Source?

31

New Theories / Re: New theory of dark matter and quantum gravity.

« on: 21/06/2022 23:13:38 »

what's more important is that for a body composed of atomic matter, such as a planet, there is some large number of very ephemeral electrons surrounding it which is analogous to the gravitational field.

In what sense is it analogous to a gravitational field?

When another object y approaches the secondary electron density of an object x the secondary density electrons from x pop-up within the first electron shell, or within the primary electron density of the atoms composing object y and exert a very mild force of attraction over the protons in the nucleus of object y.

How would that work for materials that already have all of their electron shells filled? Do they go into higher, unoccupied orbitals? That would only work if the electrons have enough energy to reach those higher orbitals. Have you done the calculations to see if that is plausible?

There is also another problem with this: it isn’t consistent with gravity being a force that obeys the inverse-square law. Take the probability distribution of an electron in an atom for example. Your model relies on electrons from one atom moving to another atom and producing an attraction to that atom’s nucleus. However, the relationship between an electron’s distance from the nucleus and the probability of it being there falls off much, much more quickly than the inverse square law (as you seem to agree with your initial values of probability). I’d be surprised if you had even a single electron in all the Earth jumping to the Moon within the span of a human lifetime. That’s an incredibly large distance for an electron bound to an atom to go. Yet the Moon and Earth are strongly bound by gravity. How does you model explain that?

En masse this effect produces a net force of attraction between two objects which is proportional to their mass.

The attraction wouldn’t be proportional to mass, though. If your model was correct, then heavier isotopes (those containing more neutrons) would still weigh about the same as their lighter counterparts because the electrons are attracted to the protons, not the neutrons. I see you mention something about neutrons being polarizable, but that would still make the attraction between an electron and neutron extraordinarily weak compared to the attraction between that of an electron and proton.

This is something that has been experimentally demonstrated. The ionization energy (the energy required to pull the electron off of the atom) of normal hydrogen is 13.595 electron-volts, whereas the ionization energy of deuterium (which has a neutron) is 13.6 electron-volts. So if the electron is attracted to neutrons, that attraction is practically nothing compared with the attraction to the proton. Here is the source for the ionization energies (the table is very low on the page, with the heading “Hydrogen Properties”: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/deuterium

I'll quickly deal with a potential objection. Neutron beams curve due to a polarisation effect caused by the secondary electron density over the up quark in the neutron, given that the up quark is 2/3 charged and the down quarks are -1/3 charged the net force of attraction is greater than the force of repulsion. I admit this is one of the many weaknesses of the theory, but please bear with me.

As pointed out before, the amount that an electron is attracted to a proton is overwhelmingly larger than the attraction between an electron and a neutron. So if your model was correct, then a proton beam should bend under gravity much, much more than a neutron beam does, despite the fact that the neutrons are very slightly more massive than protons. This would violate Galileo’s observation that all objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field.

given that electrons repel each other, and that objects composed of atomic matter are surrounded by secondary density electrons, there should be a resistance generated between the secondary electron densities of rotating bodies that is greater than non-rotating bodies.

I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

Neither the moon nor Mercury rotate.

They do, actually. The Moon's rotation period is equal to its orbital period. Mercury, however, actually does rotate faster than its orbital period (about 58.6 days versus about 88 days).

Einstein's explanation of this was that the sun's orbital wobble causes ripples in the fabric of spacetime that causes Mercury to shift on it's orbit.

That’s actually not the case. The precession would still be there even if the Sun didn’t rotate. The precession is caused by the distortion of the geometry of space caused by the Sun’s mass.

In my theory it's primarily the gravity of the other planets and secondarily the gravity of the rest of the galaxy that pulls on Mercury and causes precession in it's orbit.

If that was true, then we’d expect to see an irregular precession because the arrangement of the planets changes over time. Have you done the math to see if it works?

Because it doesn't rotate it isn't as 'locked-in' to it's orbit around the sun as the other planets.

It does rotate, and I’m not sure what you mean by “locked-in”.

Extend this effect to the rest of the galaxy and you find that the majority of bodies within the galaxy rotate and are, crucially, nested within the secondary electron density of the supermassive black hole at the centre.

Black holes don’t have electrons. If they did, those electrons couldn't get out of the event horizon anyway and thus couldn't interact with the outside Universe in the way you propose they should.

One way to test this experimentally would be to examine the rotational speed of the SMBH and correlate it to the rotational curve of the galaxy, if it's the same it implies there's some connection between the rotational speed of SMBH and that of the galaxy

It can’t be the same because the galaxy doesn’t rotate at one, uniform rate. You’d also expect there to be some degree of correlation anyway, because the angular momentum of the matter that condensed to form the galaxy would also have given angular momentum to the supermassive black hole at the center. The angular momentum of matter is conserved when it is consumed by a black hole.

that the primary electron density of the black hole has been pushed beyond the event horizon

That’s not possible. Event horizons are a point of no return. Things don’t cross from the inside out of them (as a note, Hawking radiation doesn't come out the event horizon).

The greater the number of photons per cubic metre, i.e. the lower the probability that they've already been scooped up by an electron prior to entering the sample cubic metre, i.e. for a number of photons from a star say moving towards the point of observation the electrons will tend to absorb the photons of a lower energy due to the, on average, higher number of electrons that the light has to move through

You have a problem here: the energy levels of electrons are quantized. That means that they can only absorb photons of particular energies, while not absorbing those photons which don't have the right energies. So if your model was correct, then gravitational red shift should only be observed for photons of particular frequencies, not for photons of all frequencies.

on the scales of general relativity looks curved.

So how is it that this curvature just so happens to be towards the source of mass and by the exact same amount predicted by general relativity (in light of the equivalence principle)? Can you show us the math that makes your model’s predicted degree of curvature consistent with observation? Also, this has the same problem as I stated before: only photons of certain frequencies should be interacting with those electrons and thus being lensed.

Also, just to head off another possible objection, the reason why the speed of light remains a constant is because the exchange of photons between secondary density electrons is instantaneous.

How does that explain that the speed of light is a constant in all reference frames?

Also, to explain the emissions of gravitational waves by merging black holes and binary pullers, you have to imagine the gravitational waves as emissions of pure energy i.e. photons

That doesn't work as gravitational waves behave differently than electromagnetic waves. Gravitational waves, for example, have two modes of polarization. This means that space is contracted along one axis and expanded on an axis at a right angle to that one, then alternately expanded on the first axis and contracted on the other in sequence as it passed through a given area: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GravitationalWave_PlusPolarization.gif Electromagnetic waves do not behave like this.

This is exactly the behavior that LIGO took advantage of in order to detect gravitational waves versus other types of waves. LIGO has two arms at right angles to each other. When a gravitational wave passes through LIGO, the distance between the mirrors in one arm increases while the distance between the mirror in the other arm decreases and vice versa until the wave has passed through. This is one reason we know that what LIGO sees are gravitational waves and not some other kind of wave.

As objects approach the speed of light they become saturated with an increasingly large number of secondary density electrons

Where are those electrons coming from?

Since time just measures motion the slowing down of moving objects, including things like RNA on DNA strands, and clocks, caused by the secondary electron density, time slows down also by definition.

How exactly would that affect an atomic clock? How does that explain gravitational time dilation?

Length contraction is for a similar reason, as objects approach the speed of light the electrostatic force surrounding the object forces it to occupy an increasingly small space

That would be inconsistent with relativity, as there is no such thing as absolute motion. In my reference frame, it might look like someone else is moving past me while in their reference frame, I’m the one who is moving instead. We are both equally correct. So how would there be a build up of electrostatic force on an object in one reference frame but not another? Surely you’d be able to detect that extra charge in both frames.

And how does your model explain other effects of relativity, such as frame dragging and the geodetic effect? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B

Experimental tests: Prove that electron beams are affected by gravity. Prove that neutrinos are affected by gravity. Perform experiments with negatively-charged ions to see if they fall in a gravitational field.

For what it's worth, experiments have been done that test the way neutrons are affected by gravity: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055010/pdf

To quote the paper:

In the Earth’s gravitational field, neutrons fall with an acceleration equal to the local value g [16]. The free fall does not depend on the sign of the neutron’s vertical spin component [17]. The studies provide evidence in support of the weak equivalence principle of the equality of inertial mass m_i and gravitational mass m_g. The results obtained by Koester and others confirm that m_i/m_g is equal to unity to an accuracy of 3 × 10⁻⁴ [18, 19] and is a consequence of classical mechanics and this has been demonstrated by verifying that neutrons fall parabolically on trajectories in the Earth’s gravitational field.

32

New Theories / Re: Dark Energy As Radiation Pressure (article)

« on: 21/06/2022 21:44:54 »

I'm pretty sure that puts this thread on the wrong side of the rules.
Certainly, many fora require that the discussion takes place  without having to go to other sites to see what the question is.

Posting "this is true, but I'm not explaining why" is too close to preaching.

He has another thread where he does explain his thoughts on that: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70600.msg516449#msg516449

I plan on reading it and posting my subsequent responses about his gravity ideas there. The radiation pressure and and black hole stuff is fine to keep discussing here.

As an aside, I want to apologize to samcottle for what he took to be a condescending comment. I see now, after looking at his other thread, that his comment about gravity being made of electrons isn't what I thought it originally meant.

33

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 21/06/2022 21:41:32 »

The Bar and the spiral arms are connected (or their motions are associated with each other) by mutual attraction due to gravity as one temporarily object?

That does seem to be the case.

34

New Theories / Re: Dark Energy As Radiation Pressure (article)

« on: 21/06/2022 07:55:15 »

I see you posted a thread about that here back in 2017 (I think). Is it still the same or have you updated it since then?

35

New Theories / Re: Dark Energy As Radiation Pressure (article)

« on: 21/06/2022 07:38:07 »

However, gravitational fields are, I suspect, electron densities.

How does that explain gravity (especially the observation that gravitational strength is associated with mass, not with the number of electrons)?

Having said that, you're just asserting that this idea of mine isn't compatible with relativity, you're not even giving an explanation as to why it isn't.

Because relativity successfully models gravity as a distortion of space-time (backed up by experiments that measure gravitational time dilation and the like), not as electron density.

36

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 21/06/2022 07:21:11 »

Could it be that our scientists observe that the Bar and the spiral arms are connected as one solid object?

No.

If not, then please explain what do you understand from this observation?

It means that their motions are associated with each other, at least temporarily. To say that two objects bound by gravity is solid is to greatly misrepresent what the word "solid" means. The Solar System travels through the galaxy as a unit, but it absolutely isn't solid.

37

New Theories / Re: Dark Energy As Radiation Pressure (article)

« on: 21/06/2022 07:14:26 »

Oh, what, you think I haven't studied general relativity?

Describing gravity as being made of electrons, under any circumstances, doesn't make sense in light of relativity.

The problem with you people is that you believe that every theory in physics is 100% true.

No, I don't. I'm well aware that our modern theories have shortfalls. However, the idea that gravity is made of electrons isn't a solution to whatever problem relativity may have.

hence we have quantum gravity theories.

Which, unfortunately, have not yet been successful.

This is GR dogmatism.

General relativity is currently our best theory to explain gravity. It is extremely well supported by observation. That's why it's the current default position. If it is to be replaced, the new theory has to explain everything it can explain and then some.

I don't understand how you can reason that gravity can be made out of electrons. How can electrons produce gravitational attraction between two different masses?

38

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does the IVO thruster violate Newton's third law?

« on: 21/06/2022 00:58:30 »

We know that EVERY law has a limited domain of application.

So what is the limit of the law of conservation of momentum?

39

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the inverse square law only approximately correct in general relativity?

« on: 21/06/2022 00:50:50 »

Hi.

Before adding anything to this thread it would be useful to know if @Kryptid is already done or satisfied with the replies.

Best Wishes.

I'm satisfied, but it's perfectly fine if you have something to add.

40

New Theories / Re: Dark Energy As Radiation Pressure (article)

« on: 21/06/2022 00:29:20 »

https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.05637#:~:text=Evaporating%20Primordial%20Black%20Holes%20in%20Gamma%20Ray%20and%20Neutrino%20Telescopes,-Antonio%20Capanema%2C%20AmirFarzan&text=A%20primordial%20black%20hole%20in,gamma%20ray%20and%20neutrino%20telescopes.http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/17588/1/Einstein%27s%20redshift%20derivations%20-%20preprint.pdfhttps://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1968Obs....88...91Shttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

That's about primordial black holes. If there is a statement in there somewhere which states that all black holes produce gamma rays, then please quote it. Until you supply a source that states stellar mass and supermassive black holes emit gamma rays, you have not supplied what I have asked for.

"Gravitational fields are not made of electrons." unjustified assertion. In terms of neutron star physics, it's highly unlikely they could be made of anything else. Their core is a bloody atomic nucleus (in essence) dude, think!

You might want to study general relativity. Einstein said nothing about gravity being made of electrons. I'm not aware of any other physicist who has claimed that either. If you know of any, please link them.

Also, I enjoy how you're distracting yourself with this quibbling over Hawking radiation and not addressing my point on dark energy (which was the original topic I was, here, intending to discuss). Nothing about the Casimir force also. Interesting.

Admittedly, I'm not sure how radiation pressure could lead to space expanding. Radiation pressure pushes on matter, not empty space. This also seems a poor solution for an accelerating expansion because the radiation pressure should get weaker as galaxies move further apart from each other. Less pressure should lead to a deccelerating expansion, not an accelerating one.