Dark Matter - Who Needs it?
August 30, 2007
Dark Matter - who needs it??
Cyclotron Mass - "When a force is exerted on a proton in a cyclotron it accelerates to a higher velocity relative to other matter. (This is a vector value, it has motion and direction as represented in Newton's F=MA relationship). At the same time the force also elevates the proton to a higher energy level relative to space itself. This is a scalar energy, relative to space itself, it has no direction nor motion as represented in Einstein's E=MC2 relationship.) A body always has these two forms of energy. This higher energy level relative to space (space energy level) is perceived as an increase in the (inertial) mass of the proton. The more force that is exerted on the particle, the more massive it becomes. At low velocities, this mass increase is modest. A particle moving at one-fifth the speed of light, for example, gains only two percent over its original "rest" mass. But at higher velocities that are easily attained in large cyclotrons, the inertial mass increase can become very large." This holds true whether the protons are whirling around in a cyclotron or traveling as part of a star in a spiral galaxy.
Since the velocity of stars are much higher in the outer reaches of the spiral arms of a galaxy (according to the findings of astronomer Dr. Vera C. Rubin) their protons will be at a higher space energy level and their inertial mass will therefore be greater. This phenomena not only effects the inertial mass of the proton but it also effects the strength of the proton's gravitational force according to Issac Newton's Law of Gravitation. As the inertial mass of the proton (nucleon) increases, the gravitational force of the nucleons will also increase.
Inertial mass (M) is a prime factor in Newton's Law of Gravitation:
Gravity= (G)(constant) X (M1) X (M2) divided by (D2) (distance squared).
In Newton's equation for inertial mass (F=MA), (M) is the body's inertial mass, (the body's energy level, relative to absolute space). A body (M) would require a certain amount of (F)force to (A) accelerate the body at a certain rate. An extremely small amount of this force would become the body's inertial mass, as indicated in Einstein's equation (E=MC2) relative to absolute space. This newly acquired inertial mass would also create a slightly stronger gravitational attraction, according to Newton's law of gravity.
Eintein's formula: E = MC2 (E) represents the energy level of a body relative to space (space energy level). (M) represents the inertial mass of the body. (C) represents inertial infinity (the speed of light).
We know from experience that as a body accelerates toward the speed of light, more and more force must be exerted on the body in order to maintain the same rate of acceleration. This is true no matter where the body is located, whether in a cyclotron or out in space. We perceive this property to be the body's inertial mass. More force is required to maintain the same acceleration, (M=F/A) therefore its inertial mass is greater. Absolutely nothing is added to the body as its space energy level rises, space simply requires more force be exerted to maintain the same acceleration, therefore its inertial mass is perceived to be greater.
The mass of a body of matter is an indication of the energy level the body is at, relative to space. A certain body of matter, for example, could have a large or small inertial "rest" mass depending on its energy level relative to space ("space energy level").
A body's "space energy level", determines its inertial mass. An astronaut traveling in a rocket at 1/2 the speed of light would have a larger inertial mass then the same astronaut traveling in a rocket traveling at 1/4 the speed of light. Space (the "inertial requirement of space") would require a greater force be exerted to accelerate the astronaut in any direction. His inertial mass would be greater even though the amount of matter in his body is exactly the same. The nucleons that make up astronaut's body simply rose to a higher energy level in space - their inertial mass increased.
We can see from this example that inertial mass of a body is not a static condition, it does vary as conditions change. No matter how fast a body travels, relative to other bodies, it does not move relative to space, only its inertial mass changes.
Scientists sometime confuse this change of inertial mass with time dilation. "By synchronizing two atomic clocks, then flying one for extended amounts of time in an airplane and comparing its time reading with the stationary clock, scientists have discovered a dilation of a few millionths of a second for the airborne clock."
They thought they had witnessed time dilation. Actually what had happened was that the acceleration of the plane throughout the flight had raised the inertial mass of the clock in the airplane very slightly causing the discrepency in the synchronization of the clocks. They had in effect, witnessed an experiment using the absolute frame reference of the airborne clock's, space energy level. The acceleration of the airplane had effected its inertial mass, relative to absolute space.
Since gravity is much stronger due to the greater velocities of the stars and higher space energy level in the outlying area of spiral galaxies, there is no need for "dark matter" to hold the outlying stars in place. This is also why stars are created in the outlying area of the galaxies. The gravitational attraction force is stronger at this higher space energy level, therefore the gravity of the protostars becomes strong enough to produce the energy for fusion to take place and the proto stars to ignite into new born stars.
Located far from the center of the Milky Way, and therefore traveling very fast compared to the stars near the center, the nucleon's "rest mass" in our Solar System is much higher then the stars near the center of the galaxy. Eventually as our solar system migrates toward the center of the galaxy our Solar system's nucleon's "inertial rest mass" may also become less.
Scientists invented dark matter to account for the additional mass needed to keep the galaxies from flying apart. Rather then additional mass that cannot be seen or even shown to exist, this paper advocates a stronger inertial mass that will do the job using Newton's and Einstein's mathematical relationships. Dark matter - who needs it.
Don Hamilton, author of "The Mind of Mankind" http://novan.com/mind.htm
http://novan.com/sel.htm The "Space Energy Level" of Matter
Printer-friendly versionPermalink
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Comments
What about other motions?
December 3, 2007 by Anonymous, 1 year 48 weeks ago
Comment id: 26302
I think this is a very interesting position on dark matter, and it made me wonder about something else that may have an effect. I remember reading that the universe is now thought to be expanding at nearly the speed of light. If that is so, wouldn't that add to the inertial mass of all these galaxies flying away from each other at such a great rate of acceleration?
Hoping for a reply,
Tim
Comment on Collins'es Paper
November 11, 2007 by Anonymous, 1 year 51 weeks ago
Comment id: 25904
Mr. Collins,
I read your paper carefully. (Don't you wish everyone would read things carefully before spouting off?)
At first, I was prejudiced by the title... but it turns out to be very, very misleading. Your hypothesis has nothing to do with "particles" or with "Chambers". It is simply an analysis of how much dust could contribute to the mass of a galaxy. A title that reflects that would have been better.
Second, your argument regarding the visibility of dust is specious. How well a human being can resolve a dust mote at a distance is immaterial to its detectability en mass when illuminated by starlight. Your argument is that a dust mote would not be resolvable as a disc beyond a meter or so... by that same argument, since the human eye can't resolve the disc of the stars, they shouldn't be visible!!! But, obviously, they are visible, even to the naked human eye, much more to astromical instruments. Dust motes would be visible as scattering centers of starlight, as they are in certain nebulae.... or even the Zodiacal light and gegenshein: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiacal_light
The existence of such particles is known and already accounted for. Within our own galaxy, the dust along the plane of the spiral arms has been observed and calculated. This is not the source of the unaccounted for extra mass required to explain the higher than expected radial velocities of stars within galaxies or the orbits of galaxies around one another.
--Candice H. Brown Elliott
Dark Matter identified
November 24, 2007 by Anonymous, 1 year 49 weeks ago
Comment id: 26136
To Candice H, Brown Elliott.
First I want to thank you for reading my paper and for taking the time to raise your concerns. I would like to answer them in the order you presented. The title is an accurate representation of the “measuring tool†I employed to identify Dark Matter. It is a particle, consisting of one microgram of mass, suspended within a cubical chamber 1 kilometer on a side (3281 ft or about 0.6 mile). Scientists often synthesize a “measuring tool†and use it to explain a theory letting future experiments validate or challenge their assumption. I took a different approach. Using documented data on the amounts of matter falling on earth collected by a respected astrophysicist (Ceplecha 1996), and employing physics and mathematics I created a demonstrated “measuring tool†identifying mass from the data.
My analysis as to the visibility of the particle on a unit basis is to show how small the target particle is in relation to the chamber. Pardon me for this next description, which I feel you totally comprehend but others will read this blog who may not understand the reality of minuscule matter forms. A common aspirin is 324 milligrams. If you look down at the circular form and imagine it as a pie, cut it into 360 pieces each a very thin 1-degree slice. In each slice are 900 one-microgram particles. One of these ‘dust like’ particles (smaller than a poppy seed) floats in a chamber one kilometer on a side.
Thank you for the reference you included in your critique. The dust motes the reference mentions are identified as “If it were in the form of 1 mm particles, each with the same albedo (reflecting power) as Earth's moon, each particle would be 8 km from its neighbors.†This sounds like a rough description of my “Particle Chamber Theory†except the reference concentrates on size instead of mass.
You indicate that stars “shouldn’t be visible!!! But, obviously they are visible, even to the naked eyeâ€. Remember stars are suns and they self illuminate with massive amounts of energy. Dust particles are not luminous and only reflect a minute amount of incident light. It’s because of this lack of illumination that the term ‘Dark’ was associated with the concept of Dark Matter.
Finally I agree that dust is known but as my paper references “Dunne et al., 2003 "Dust has been swept under the cosmic carpet - for years astronomers have treated it as a nuisance because of the way it hides the light from the stars. But then we found that there is dust right at the edge of the Universe in the earliest stars and galaxies, and we realized that we were ignorant of even its basic origin. Now, with these supernova dust factories, we can explain how that dust was made."
My paper identifies dust as Dark Matter and your analysis helps bring this subject out to the light of day.
Thank you again Jim Collins SR
Dark Matter identified
November 7, 2007 by Anonymous, 2 years 1 day ago
Comment id: 25858
I wish to politely challenge the presentation “Dark Matter Who needs it.†Its emphasis on explaining away dark matter attracted my attention. I published a mathematical based paper that identifies dark matter and its gravitational forces. The paper is titled, 'The Particle Chamber Theory of Dark Matter.’ It is a nine page paper (including two pages of references) which was published April 2007 on the Web under the domain name collinsconsultinggroup.com
THE ‘PARTICLE CHAMBER’ THEORY OF DARK MATTER
By JAMES J. COLLINS SR
ABSTRACT
This paper, the “Particle Chamber “ theory, examines and identifies microscopic, dust like, matter as the mechanism that causes the gravitational effect known as dark matter. The initial analysis identified how these particles are distributed around our solar system’. Minute particles of matter are each contained in cubical chambers one kilometer on a side. This paper employs a mathematical analysis to evaluate its potential distribution of the chambers over the universe based on measurements of particulate matter deposited on earth each year. The mathematics indicate that the universe can easily hold both the existing visible matter, and dark matter with a mass ten times greater that the mass of all the visible matter, and the universe still has vast vistas devoid of any matter. A gravitational effect caused by the accumulation of these particle chambers into cubic light-years calculates to reflect the power of stars.
The paper demonstrates why dark matter can’t be seen (in most cases) and shows that this theory doesn’t conflict with many of the insights found in the papers on this issue.
To bring up the paper go to Yahoo or Google search and submit “particle chamber theory†(Make sure to add the quotation marks or the search result is several hundred). Please use the PDF file as the other has trouble with the equations.
Thank you for your time. JIM COLLINS SR.
Re: Dark Matter, Who Needs It?
October 31, 2007 by donzzz, 2 years 1 week ago
Comment id: 25773
In his Space.com article: "Scientists Say Dark Matter Doesn't Exist", author Ker Than writes:
"Now John Moffat, an astronomer at the University of Waterloo in Canada, and Joel Brownstein, his graduate student, say those announcements were premature.
In a study detailed in the Nov. 21 issue of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, the pair says their Modified Gravity (MOG) theory can explain the Bullet Cluster observation. MOG differs from other modified gravity theories in its details, but is similar in that it predict that the force of gravity changes with distance.
"MOG gravity is stronger if you go out from the center of the galaxy than it is in Newtonian gravity," Moffat explained. "The stronger gravity mimics what dark matter does. With dark matter, you take Einstein and Newtonian gravity and you shovel in more dark matter. If there's more matter, you get more gravity. Whereas for me, I say dark matter doesn't exist. It's the gravity that's changed."
Using images of the Bullet Cluster made by the Hubble, Chandra X-ray and Spitzer space telescopes and the Magellan telescope in Chile, the scientists analyzed the way the cluster's gravity bent light from a background galaxy—an effect known as gravity lensing. The pair concluded that dark matter was not necessary to explain the results."
By Ker Than
Staff Writer - Space.Com
posted: 29 October 2007
06:07 am ET
For the complete article see: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071029-mm-mog-theory.html
-----------------------------------
Here are two scientists that agree that gravity gets stronger as you go out from the center of the galaxy. Modified Gravity theory (MOG gravity).
As I wrote in my article - Dark Matter, Who Needs it? I say, "The reason the stars' gravity gets stronger is - in a rotating spiral galaxy, the galaxy's outlying stars are traveling faster then its central stars, and are therefore at a higher energy level relative to space ("space energy level"). Therefore the nucleons of the outlying stars', inertial mass will be greater then the central stars. Therefore, according to Newton's "Law of Gravity", their gravity will be stronger." - Newton's gravitation formula doesn't change, only the nucleon's "inertial mass" becomes stronger because they are at a higher "space energy level". ( Newton didn't know this happens because, particle accelerators wouldn't be invented for another couple of hundred years.)
Don Hamilton
Refer: "The Mind of Mankind" http://novan.com/mind.htm
Chapts. 15 to 18
http://novan.com/sel.htm - "Space Energy Level"
Concur with the observation
October 7, 2007 by Robert A Cook PE, 2 years 4 weeks ago
Comment id: 25303
Concur with the observation that even edge stars don't seem to be moving fast eough to account for the weight/mass difference needed.
Conceptually, I have a problem with any cosmological theories that require 90% of our universe be "dark matter" that cannot be seen nor observed, simply for the convenience (or "beauty") of the equations needed to create closed or open universes ....
But having said that, I can only observe that Hawkings theorizes that matter can "escape" the interior of black holes quantumly.
If so, and if such escapes can "go" far enough to leave the vicinity of the black hole, then why not assume that such matter "pops" back into space to allow the expansion force that Einstein originally projected?
is MOND a bust?
August 31, 2007 by Lowell (not verified), 2 years 9 weeks ago
Comment id: 24757
A recent article suggested that there are regions of space with perceivable dark matter.
Does that mean that the MOND hypothesis is just wrong? It implies that the phenomena we call dark matter is actually a property of space.
Unfortunately, in error by a factor of 1000
August 30, 2007 by Stargazer2 (not verified), 2 years 10 weeks ago
Comment id: 24753
Stars in the outer reaches of galaxies have velocities measured in hundreds of km/s, not hundreds of thousands
km/s. They are reaching only about 0.1% of lightspeed, thus any inertial mass increase is completely insignificant
(0.00005%) and will certainly not explain dark matter away. To do that stars would have to be whizzing around the galaxy at 97% of light speed.
DARK MATTER
August 30, 2007 by JW (not verified), 2 years 10 weeks ago
Comment id: 24752
REMEMBER "THAT GUY" WHO GAVE UP ON HIS THEORY OF "MATTER" DISSAPEARING IN BLACK HOLES? SOMEBODY HAS TO CARE. PERHAPS THE DENSITY FOLDS UNTO ITSELF UNTILL IT BURSTS OUT INTO A PARRALEL UNIVERSE. CREATION OR JUST A FLUSH!