[Ron Hughes]

Phys, does the rotation curve of galaxies guarantee the existence of dark matter? I would think that a logical mind must realize there is the possibility of another explanation even that one of our fundamental tenets may be wrong.

[Ron Hughes]

One more question phys and I will explain after your answer. Suppose that the result of the BB was the creation of a single proton and no other particles, how much space would be created for that proton?

[PhysBang]

Phys, does the rotation curve of galaxies guarantee the existence of dark matter? I would think that a logical mind must realize there is the possibility of another explanation even that one of our fundamental tenets may be wrong.

The rotation curves of galaxies are one piece of evidence for dark matter among many. If one wants to demonstrate an alternative to dark matter, one has to address the evidence. Traditionally, alternative hypotheses to dark matter have found the galaxy rotation curves the easiest piece of evidence to account for, but have had problems with the rest.

Simply imagining a different possibility is not enough to claim that existing science is wrong. If one wants to say that the work of practising astronomers is incorrect, one should demonstrate this.

One more question phys and I will explain after your answer. Suppose that the result of the BB was the creation of a single proton and no other particles, how much space would be created for that proton?

Well, given the standard model, it looks like there could be any amount of space created for that particle. This depends on other initial conditions, primarily the rate of expansion in the space of the universe. That rate can only be so high in a finite universe. If the universe is finite in size, then it could have a maximum radius and collapse on itself, again depending on the initial condition that sets the rate of expansion.

[PhysBang]

To demonstrate that I'm not cherry picking. We see Einstein repeatedly telling us the speed of light is variable.

Picking statements from wildly different theories to say that the speed of light is variable in GR is a perfect example of cherry-picking. You are taking quotations out of their original context and using them to support a point about a significantly different context.

Since you seem to want to use the 1911 theory as representative of Einstein's theory, please show us using this theory where Einstein uses an aether.

I don't. Plus I've already shown you the 1920 Leyden Address where Einstein talks of the aether of General Relativity.

So you admit that you reject the theory of 1911 in which Einstein says that the speed of light is variable. Good. Now you can simply show us how to properly calculate the rotation curves of galaxies in GR.

I politely decline on the grounds that such a laborious exercise is unnecessary in the light of Einstein's description of a gravitational field as inhomogeneous space, along with our current knowledge of the expansion of the universe. Space expands between the galaxies, not within. The result is inhomogeneous space, and that's a gravitational field with no causative matter. 

It is not unnecessary, because every astronomer working with dark matter uses GR to calculate rotation curves. You are saying that they are doing this incorrectly. Why do you dismiss their work if you are not willing to point out what they are doing wrong? These people are using g_μv like any other scientist. Are you claiming that these astronomers are simply lying about their results?

It is at odds with Einstein, who described the central concentration of energy tied up in as the matter of a planet causing a conditioning of the surrounding space described via a non-constant g_μv which causes a variable speed of light that then causes the curvilinear motion that is described as curved spacetime. I've paraphrased, but read the original material, and you will find that I am correct. 

I have read the original material and I note that you are incorrect. You are incorrect because you are continuing to ignore exactly what the authors of the page you cited explain.

No, I'm afraid it isn't. What's conceptually more fundamental relates to what we actually observe. We don't observe time passing, our seconds are defined using the motion of light. Thus when our second changes, it's because the rate of motion of light has changed. 

If you can make a theory out of these claims, then demonstrate it with a simple example. For example, using your theory, calculate the rotation curve of a galaxy. Alternately, calculate the perihelion shift of Mercury.

Despite working with, and accepting as approximately correct, the Friedmann models, cosmologists do not run around saying that the speed of light is variable.

But I'm afraid some do. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light and http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4507v1.pdf where Magueijo and Moffat responded to Ellis. Its constancy has become a tautology.

This is another example of cherry-picking. Magueijo and Moffat do not support anything like your theory, nor do they use the fact that there is expansion in the Friedmann models as evidence for the variable speed of light. As evidence, we can see that they discuss VSL theories as alternatives to GR, not as interpretations of GR. Additionally, they note "The c in VSL theories is never a
coordinate speed of light. It is the physical speed of light measured by free-falling observers and cannot be undone by a coordinate transformation." (pg. 3) This is a fundamental different in determinations of speeds that was expressed in Gibbs and Carlip's article that you apparently fail to understand: Einstein's variable speed of light in the quotation is a coordinate speed, not that speed measured by free-falling observers. It is this latter speed that one should use as the basis of generalizations, not the speed in a particular coordinate system. It is this latter speed that determines the causal structure of events, not the speed in a coordinate system.

You are welcome to come up with your own theory and test it against the evidence, but you should not try to use Einstein in some kind of ham-fisted argument from authority in lieu of providing evidence.

[Geezer]

Notice:

This topic will relocated to "New Theories".

Geezer (Mod)

[Ron Hughes]

Phys, I would say that space in my single proton Universe, at the instant of the proton's creation, would start expanding at C because the electric field of the proton would start creating space at C.

[Farsight (OP)]

I've given you ample Einstein quotes PhysBang, enough to demonstrate that I'm clearly not cherry-picking, and the hoary old "out of context" does not undo what Einstein actually said. We all know that the 1911 theory was incomplete, just as we know that not all cosmologists examining gravitational anomalies support the dark matter hypothesis, just as we know that there are cosmologists who do walk around talking about the variable speed of light. This isn't a "my theory" issue, this is Einstein's theory. If you'd really read the original, you'd have read "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned." Dismissing Einstein is no substantive argument.

Here's the deal re dark matter, as simply as I can put it: it's energy that causes gravity, not matter. Matter only causes gravity because of the energy content. Einstein told us that a gravitational field has energy, and that a gravitational field is a region of inhomogeneous space. Now take a region of homogeneous space and divide it into cubes. Now decrease the energy-density of all of the cubes bar the one in the centre. The result? An energy-density gradient all around it. A gravitational field. But try as you might, when you look in that central cube, there's not a single speculative WIMP, there's no dark matter there. Because the dark matter you're looking for, is space itself. It's dark, it has energy, it isn't moving with respect to you, and E=mc².   

[Ron Hughes]

My gedanken about the single proton should be enormously important for anyone who thinks about it's meaning. THE EXPANDING ELECTRIC FIELD OF THE PROTON IS THE AETHER OF SPACE . When all the electrons and protons were created their expanding electric fields created space at C.

[PhysBang]

I've given you ample Einstein quotes PhysBang, enough to demonstrate that I'm clearly not cherry-picking, and the hoary old "out of context" does not undo what Einstein actually said.

The statement "out of context" is surely old to you because you keep using the same flawed technique to try to make your case. Your continuing behaviour of taking things out of context does nothing to change any of the science that Einstein and others published. If you want to actually address the content of the science, we'll all be waiting.

Here's the deal re dark matter, as simply as I can put it: it's energy that causes gravity, not matter. Matter only causes gravity because of the energy content. Einstein told us that a gravitational field has energy, and that a gravitational field is a region of inhomogeneous space. Now take a region of homogeneous space and divide it into cubes. Now decrease the energy-density of all of the cubes bar the one in the centre. The result? An energy-density gradient all around it. A gravitational field. But try as you might, when you look in that central cube, there's not a single speculative WIMP, there's no dark matter there. Because the dark matter you're looking for, is space itself. It's dark, it has energy, it isn't moving with respect to you, and E=mc².   

OK, so, please, do the calculation for just one galaxy that astronomers use as evidence for dark matter and show people wrong based on scientific evidence. You are trying to say that every textbook, and pretty much every equation in every textbook, on this subject is wrong. You can easily prove your point by doing one simple example.

We are all waiting.

[PhysBang]

My gedanken about the single proton should be enormously important for anyone who thinks about it's meaning. THE EXPANDING ELECTRIC FIELD OF THE PROTON IS THE AETHER OF SPACE . When all the electrons and protons were created their expanding electric fields created space at C.

What you have written fails to be a gedanken experiment because it fails to elicit gedanken. You make some claims, but I have no idea what they could possibly mean.

[Ron Hughes]

If you can't understand it nothing in the Universe can make you understand.