Notices
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Gravitational Properties concerning Dark Matter and Time.

  1. #1 Gravitational Properties concerning Dark Matter and Time. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6
    I'm still new to forums and physics so please bear with me.

    This idea is still pretty rough but I'll explain it as best as I can.

    I've been having trouble completely believing in Dark Energy for a few reasons. One its physics aren't very well understood. Two as a result of this it can't be explained very well. And three, the concept adds a whole other concept to the theory of the universe which at times is necessary, but when observing history the truth is normally more simple than complex.

    Dark energy theory (or whatever you wanna call it) was intended to be a solution for the accelerating expansion of our current universe. However, I'm thinking other properties could be a foot to make the mysterious properties of Dark Energy more convoluted. Specifically I'm referring to Gravity. I've begun to think that gravity's effect on time may be a result of this so I have a few questions just to get my facts straight I suppose.

    1. When two objects (lets say they're planetary size) are in space they pull on each other. When these objects have different masses, the larger will produce a slower time field then the smaller. So does a smaller object orbit a larger one simply because the larger one is being pulled toward the smaller one at a slower rate because it bends spacetime? (That's a mouthful)

    2. One of the key observations that is used as evidence for dark energy is that stars on the edges of galaxies move faster than they should be moving mathematically. Since the center of the galaxy has a greater amount of gravity acting on it , I'm assuming time would have to move slower in the galaxy. So could it be possible that these stars on the outskirts of Galaxies only appear to be moving quickly because of the contrast of velocity within areas closer to the center?

    3. Do black holes move or are they fixed points in space? The reason I ask this is because I hear that a Black Holes Gravity is so great that time stops at the center of one. In my eyes that would have to mean that a black hole is immobile and fixed at a point within the confines of our universe, right?


    Anyway just let me know what you guys think :P


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Hi Wolfer and welcome!

    We have a section for own ideas, the New Hypothesis and Ideas section. I am moving your post there. Enjoy!


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6
    Oh sweet thanks. Sorry still new to this.

    Anyway I have another question that I think I have an answer to, but I'd like to get someone else's input.

    What makes an object with a greater mass have more of a tendency to stay in motion or to be still? (I know that's called inertia, but I wanna know what's behind that)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfer View Post
    Dark energy theory (or whatever you wanna call it) was intended to be a solution for the accelerating expansion of our current universe.
    Well, no it wasn't. It actually invented by some Newtonian scientists looking for a new aspect of gravity to balance out the attractive effects of gravity at large distances in order to keep the universe stable. Einstein later adopted this, in roughly its present form, as the cosmological constant in 1917. He then rejected it because it was pointed out in great detail that it could not be expected to balance out perfectly and that the universe would still expand or contract. Later work showed that there could be a link between quantum field theory and this cosmological constant. Current investigations seek to determine if there is a link. Dark energy is, as far as we can tell, a gravitational effect that works at large distances to increase the average distance between ideal points. It also contributes to the relationship between the overall energy density of the universe and the overall geometry of the universe (perhaps because it is truly an energy density).
    1. When two objects (lets say they're planetary size) are in space they pull on each other. When these objects have different masses, the larger will produce a slower time field then the smaller. So does a smaller object orbit a larger one simply because the larger one is being pulled toward the smaller one at a slower rate because it bends spacetime? (That's a mouthful)
    Time delay doesn't really work like that. There is a time delay in all regions of high gravity relative to areas of lower gravity. But both objects pull on each other and they both orbit their shared center of gravity. We can describe this from a number of different perspectives. According to general relativity, we might say that they each follow a path in 4D spacetime that their masses create.
    2. One of the key observations that is used as evidence for dark energy is that stars on the edges of galaxies move faster than they should be moving mathematically. Since the center of the galaxy has a greater amount of gravity acting on it , I'm assuming time would have to move slower in the galaxy. So could it be possible that these stars on the outskirts of Galaxies only appear to be moving quickly because of the contrast of velocity within areas closer to the center?
    This is not evidence for dark energy. This is evidence for dark matter. There is no reason to think that a contrast in velocity influences acceleration.
    3. Do black holes move or are they fixed points in space? The reason I ask this is because I hear that a Black Holes Gravity is so great that time stops at the center of one. In my eyes that would have to mean that a black hole is immobile and fixed at a point within the confines of our universe, right?
    There are no fixed points in space. Time does not stop in a black hole, it is that we cannot compare time coordinates inside a black hole with those outside of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    42
    Good answers here without a quote to be fair, If One gravitational energy was smaller than the other and let's say, one was above the other, the larger one let's say the one at the bottom moved faster, this i'm sure to increase the energy to make the energy above work harder but the darkness above at a slower pace. So let's say that to increase the mass darkness of space somewhere in between there would have to be a path for both to meet. Problem, if the both masses of darkness were of different properties would this casue gravitiational conflict and unbalance to the whole movement of both masses. If there was a reason there been one above and one below then how could both work together to increase the energy fields, perhaps to increase darkness as a whole and build on the universe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6
    Oh thanks for clearing up the history behind dark energy, I wasn't really too sure about its origins.



    OKAY I FUCKED UP number 1. The two object wouldn't orbit each other, they would only eventually collide. The smaller planet would be moving at a higher rate of acceleration Many would argue that this is because the larger planet is exerting more force on the smaller one. My theory is that the forces are equal and the larger planets just has a much stronger tendency to be still. I think this tendency is reliant on the object's effect on time. It has less of a tendency to move because relative to it time is slower.

    In number two I meant that could this contrast in velocity (well I guess it would be acceleration) be proof that within the galaxy time moves slower because of all the mass and gravity distorting it? As an alternative to dark matter.

    According to Steven Hawking time stops within a black hole because of its massive gravity. This is supported by the theory of Gravitational Time Dilation. Are you 100% sure that a black hole isn't a fixed point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfer View Post
    Are you 100% sure that a black hole isn't a fixed point?
    I don't know what a fixed point would be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfer View Post
    Are you 100% sure that a black hole isn't a fixed point?
    I don't know what a fixed point would be.
    It'd be a point in space with static coordinates. As opposed to other celestial objects which all do move.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfer View Post
    It'd be a point in space with static coordinates. As opposed to other celestial objects which all do move.
    Given that we could simply rewrite our coordinates so that such an object was in motion relative to our coordinates, I ask: what is a fixed point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfer View Post
    Are you 100% sure that a black hole isn't a fixed point?
    I don't know what a fixed point would be.
    It'd be a point in space with static coordinates. As opposed to other celestial objects which all do move.
    How do you tell when an object is at a fixed point? What do you compare it to? I am at a fixed point relative to my desk right now, I can tell this because I can measure the distance and orientation of myself relative to my desk. But both the desk and I are in motion around the centre of the Earth, which is itself in motion around the Sun and so on. Is there really such a thing as an "absolutely" fixed point? If so, can we test it? Is it even a useful concept?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfer View Post
    Are you 100% sure that a black hole isn't a fixed point?
    I don't know what a fixed point would be.
    It'd be a point in space with static coordinates. As opposed to other celestial objects which all do move.
    How do you tell when an object is at a fixed point? What do you compare it to? I am at a fixed point relative to my desk right now, I can tell this because I can measure the distance and orientation of myself relative to my desk. But both the desk and I are in motion around the centre of the Earth, which is itself in motion around the Sun and so on. Is there really such a thing as an "absolutely" fixed point? If so, can we test it? Is it even a useful concept?
    It may be impossible to test to the validity for the time being, but I'm sure you have some conception of what I said. If the entire universe could be graphed, most celestial objects would have fluxing coordinates. If black holes are fixed points that would present evidence of new properties we don't understand in the subject of time space. If a point is frozen in time, then it would have to be fixed in space right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfer View Post
    It may be impossible to test to the validity for the time being, but I'm sure you have some conception of what I said. If the entire universe could be graphed, most celestial objects would have fluxing coordinates. If black holes are fixed points that would present evidence of new properties we don't understand in the subject of time space. If a point is frozen in time, then it would have to be fixed in space right?
    Since the 1800s, many physicists have realized that it is pretty much impossible to conceive of what you said. No physical properties seem to rest on absolute position; physical properties seem to rely on relative velocity and relative acceleration.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfer View Post
    It may be impossible to test to the validity for the time being, but I'm sure you have some conception of what I said. If the entire universe could be graphed, most celestial objects would have fluxing coordinates. If black holes are fixed points that would present evidence of new properties we don't understand in the subject of time space. If a point is frozen in time, then it would have to be fixed in space right?
    Since the 1800s, many physicists have realized that it is pretty much impossible to conceive of what you said. No physical properties seem to rest on absolute position; physical properties seem to rely on relative velocity and relative acceleration.

    Just because we don't have the tools or the knowledge of how we would define a fixed point, doesn't mean that the phenomenon can't possibly happen. If we stop trying to figure out if its possible due to precedent thoughts and ways of life, we'll never advance. If a black hole were a fixed point though, that would directly correlate timespace and inertia.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfer View Post
    Just because we don't have the tools or the knowledge of how we would define a fixed point, doesn't mean that the phenomenon can't possibly happen. If we stop trying to figure out if its possible due to precedent thoughts and ways of life, we'll never advance. If a black hole were a fixed point though, that would directly correlate timespace and inertia.
    Well, it would require quite an amazing conceptual change, since it appears almost impossible to imbue physics with some idea of absolute space. People have put an insane amount of thought into this; it's not like anyone has given up without trying!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    244
    The main problem i see is,defining a fixed point in space.not so easy when you get down to it.no point in space is fixed with respect to any, or other points.only reference points can be theoretically inferred,as space is dynamic,with relativety seeming the only recourse we can possibly comprehend.
    as an analogy imagine this.an infinite length of string;you are (hypothetically) in the middle of this string,youtravel one meter along,now,you may think you are one meter from your start point,but how can you tell? in one direction it is still infinitaly long,and so it is in the other direction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    45
    The dark energy is a bluff. The dark energy has no experimental confirmation. The dark energy is contrary to the ideas of Einstein. The concept of Einstein's curved space-time is the basis of gravity. I'm surprised the free interpretation of the fundamental knowledge of gravity. The universe is a quantized space-time. The quantized space-time is not uniform, it is curved. The different curvature of quantized space-time we perceive as dark matter. The theory of Superunification has a mathematical tool for studying the actual deformation of the quantized space-time. The deformation of quantized space-time is the basis for the formation of mass and gravity. Moderator should not introduce people into error, and it must explain the fundamentals of physics, which are not inconsistent with Einstein. I advise every one to become familiar with the works of Einstein.
    I apologize for my bad English.
    Vladimir Leonov
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonov View Post
    I apologize for my bad English.
    Apology accepted. Now apologize for spreading misunderstandings of general relativity and dark matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonov View Post
    I apologize for my bad English.
    Apology accepted. Now apologize for spreading misunderstandings of general relativity and dark matter.
    I find it hard to explain to you my position because you understand only one phrase of mine, not related to physics. General relativity is not related to dark matter. Dark matter is only a few hypotheses that contradict each other. Dark matter has the main feature -it is transparent, which means it does not contain any substance (a weighty matter). That creates the perturbation of space-time? They are created by deformation of the quantized space-time. What is the cause of the deformation of the quantized space-time with no substance? The cause the deformation space can be enormous gravitational waves, many waves, interference of gravitational waves. Supernova explosions and old stars can generate a lot of gravitational waves, which are superimposed on each other, forming a huge interference pattern. Why do not consider this hypothesis? It is fully consistent with Einstein.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Dark matter is only a few hypotheses that contradict each other. Dark matter has the main feature -it is transparent, which means it does not contain any substance (a weighty matter).
    This is wrong. Dark matter is needed precisely because it doesn't interact with normal matter, EXCEPT for gravitationally, meaning it must have mass.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore Brandon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    144
    ok i decided to comment after debating with myself for 10 mins and re-reading this thread.. My idea, with no evidence yet..

    Dark energy is simply space expanding creating the illusion of time.. quick example, pretend we found the higgs boson, and discovered it makes a copy of itself every hour much like biology does with life, but on a minute scale. which expands space and creates time.. somehow...

    Dark matter is a lot easier to understand for myself.. Black holes consume space and have gravity. In a galaxy there is a balance between space expanding and black holes comsuming this space. At the center of a galaxy a black hole consumes alot of space and is growing a fraction faster than space is expanding. This effect of black holes would explain why the stars on the edge of a galaxy would be greatly effected by all of the black holes in the galaxy consuming space along with all of the gravity of stars etc.. It seems more relivant to call it "dark gravity" than "dark matter" becaure we are looking for gravity, or a similar effect.. There are plenty of ways to experiment as im sure you could think of a few yourself with better technology.. just a thought tho.. highly doubtable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Dark matter is only a few hypotheses that contradict each other. Dark matter has the main feature -it is transparent, which means it does not contain any substance (a weighty matter).
    This is wrong. Dark matter is needed precisely because it doesn't interact with normal matter, EXCEPT for gravitationally, meaning it must have mass.
    On this topic can argue long. Dark matter is a transparent area. This area does not contain normal matter, butt his area is an area of the gravitational perturbations. This paradox cannot be explained in terms of learned knowledge. We need to know the nature of gravity. Einstein said that gravity is created by the curvature of space-time. Space-time must be quantized; it must have the quantized structure. I have entered in the physics the quantum of space-time (quanton) in 1996.

    Quanton have an alternative to the Higgs boson. Quanton has no a mass. This is a massless particle. Quantized space-time consists of quantons. Space-time should be bent, that is, it can be deformed. I can deform the quantized a space-time in my experiments. The quantized space-time may be deformed artificially inside local area of the working a body of the quantum engine. Look this video.
    Quantum Energetics: Video: The tests 2009 of a quantum pulsed engine for generating thrust without the ejection of reactive mass

    If the Higgs boson still cannot find that the realities of quantized space-time are confirmed experimentally. The nature of the formation of mass in the quantized space-time has been well studied in theory of Superunification. The quantized space-time can also be characterized as some scalar field, with the distribution of the quantum density of the medium ρ=f(x, y, z)

    Fig. We introduce a sphere with a radius R0 and start to compress it uniformly together with the medium to the radius of the gravitational boundary RS. The quantized space-time inside the gravitational boundary is compressed to quantum density ρ2(red region). In the external region, the space-time is expanded to the quantum density ρ1(blue region). Moving away from the particle ρ1 - ρothe field weakens, characterizing the distribution ρ1 =f(r) of the relative curvature Rg/r of the space-time.

    Thus, we can observe the formation of the mass. According to Einstein, spherical deformation of the quantized space-time is only is a distortion which can be represented by Lobachevski spheres of different curvature, threaded on each other.
    If Fig.does not open, it can be viewed on the link in Fig. 4
    http://theoryofsuperunification-leon...antons_16.html

    image001.jpg
    Last edited by Leonov; September 14th, 2011 at 02:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Dark Matter or Primordially Warped Space-Time?
    By DannyBoy1974 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: March 9th, 2014, 08:53 AM
  2. Black holes, dark matter & dark energy
    By Cuete in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2013, 05:33 PM
  3. A connection Between Space-time and Dark matter/Energy
    By DarkMatterPhilosopher in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: October 30th, 2011, 06:43 PM
  4. Dark energy, Dark matter, Fine tuning problem,Negative mass!
    By icarus2 in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: July 31st, 2011, 12:12 PM
  5. Replies: 25
    Last Post: July 14th, 2005, 07:14 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •