Thread: Gravity, Dark Matter and why we're wrong.

Originally Posted by Thinking Dragon

I have heard purposed that gravity actually radiates from another dimension into our own.

I've wondered about that. But that would make it seem like theres a finite number of dimensions since there is a quantifiable expression that calculates how much mass is impacting our universe. And if there was a multiverse, it would make sense to me that there is an infinite number of universes that continues ad infinitum- where not only energy but matter is constantly being recycled between them.

Here is something to consider; I was taught from a very early age that Einstein's most beautiful equation E= MC squared true meaning is that energy and matter are interchangeable. I only say this because of all this neutrino proving Einstein wrong nonsense. I read one piece that proclaimed that Einstein's theory meant that energy came from matter, which would seem to completely disagree with the commonly excepted big bang theory ( that is probably just my opinion) which to me would seem to indicate that there was an event in which matter energy was compressed to the point of producing matter( again my interpretation) at which time the super heated material would develop EM charges and either attract or repel and as mass increased so to did the effect of local space and thus gravity. If matter came from energy then the EM model makes perfect sense.

It satisfies my reason to a greater degree- but I wouldn't even consider myself a neophyte on the topic, so please dont take me as any authority on the issue. Not yet anyway, lol.

A simple Newtonian calculation of three common shapes rotating structures take shows a direct correlation of distribution of mass with rotational speed. In a structure where most mass is in the center like in the solar system the rotational curve slopes down from the center. In a shape like the galaxy with a bulge and disk the curve slopes horizontaly from center and for shapes like a disk with no central mass like LSB (Low Surface Brightness) galaxies the rotation curve slopes upward from center.

These are A Priori mathematical models that can be derived strictly from the three shapes without invoking dark matter at all. But these models are a perfect fit with observed rotation paterns and visible mass distributions.

The question is how much mass is there and how much can we see.

How much we can see is based on luminance. Gravity is uniformly based on mass everywhere. luminance is not. To modify gravity is a taller tree to climb than to admit that luminance is not uniform and that our instrument's ability to detect mass by its luminance or lack therof or our interpretation of the results of our instrumens may be lacking.

We can invoke "dark matter", something we have never seen and which by definition we may never see. We can look for this mysterious matter which is a slightly shorter but still a pretty tall tree to climb. Or we can look for ways to interpret the result that observation shows that some matter is more luminant that others.

So the low hanging fruit for constants of variable luminance of mass must look to the facts of variable luminance that can be observed.

Fusion causes some matter to be more luminant than other matter. We understand a lot about fusion. In the solar system 99% of the mass is luminant because it is part of the sun. In a galaxy with a central bulge the central bulge generaly follows the luminance to mass ratio of the solar system. (this is not a hard rule as not all galaxies are the same age or have the same proportion of fusion inhibiting elements). From this we may assume that the cores of galaxies have most of their mass in stars.

The disks of galaxies are another matter. They do not have the same luminance to mass ratio as the cores of galaxies or the solar system. But they also don't have their mass distributed in the same density as the cores of galaxies. By this we see that there is a correlation of mass density and fusion as evidenced by luminance. We also find observationaly that the ratio of luminance to density falls off faster than the density of non luminant mass. We see there is a non geometric but still direct relationship of mass density to luminosity. Therefore it is disingenuous and tantamount to lazyness to invoke "Dark Matter" to explain the diferance between "dynamic mass" (mass calculated by Newton) and "luminant mass" (mass that is fusioning) before determining the specifics of the observable density to fusion ratios.