It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Aetherial and Dark Matter Discussions
page: 1share:
My work on a publication describing the aether continues, and I could now use some advice and comment from physicists here on a few things I am not
expert on. My last update here at ATS was on Arbitrageur's AMA thread,
here, over seven months ago. Had that thread stayed up, I'd likely
have posted a few times since then. Unfortunately that thread was closed once it got well into page 400. So I'm starting this thread for aetherial
and dark matter discussions. Present areas of concern are dark matter, dark energy, the perihelion advances of the planets and the bending of
starlight around the sun.
UPDATE ON PROGRESS
I've been working on a publication for close to three years now. The derivations of Maxwell's Equations as well as the Lorentz Force Equation are now complete, although they do need some further checking. Those derivations are based on a starting assumption of an aetherial substance not too different from everyday substances, plus some postulates governing density, flows and tension within that aether. My son, a graduate student in an M.D./physics Ph.D. program, and who has an undergraduate physics degree, has checked all the math and believes everything is sound. I have been through it several times. I will want one more check myself before sending something out for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, but I believe that part is done. It was done just before the 2020 New Year.
The completion of the electrrodynmaics part was the original goal, but I had an idea I wanted to check out regarding gravity. It soon became apparent that with one additional postulate, Newtonian gravity also came out, and that derivation was also completed right before the first of the year. The gravitational redshift easily followed. It then became quickly clear (thanks to blackcrowe and arbitrageur for their comment here) that dark energy is consistent with the theory. It looked dark matter would comes out naturally as well, and hence Maxwell, Lorentz, Newtonian Gravity, dark matter, and dark energy looked to be possible from a single aetherial underpinning.
Just after the first of the year, I noticed another effect from the model that might lead to a calculation of the perihelion advances, and a very simple calculation (based on Price and Rush) got to within 4% of experimental results. It took all of January and February until I realized a numerical calculation using java BigDecimals was needed to get to the needed precision for the calculation. But once done, the calculated perihelion advances match well to the experimental data. Next came time working on the derivation of dark matter effects, but before getting into it far at all I found that my Newtonian gravity derivation had a sign error. It took March, April and May to fix that problem. June was spent getting a good description of dark matter written up, along with a first draft concerning the perihelion analysis. An understanding of the gravitational bending of light appears not too far off. I'm hopeful it will all be done by the end of summer, with a paper off for peer review in the fall, but it is entirely possible it could take far longer.
Besides giving an update on progress, another motivation for writing this post now is to ask about references. I have found very good references for data on the perihelion advance, and plan to cover that further down in the thread at a later date. But for now we'll start with:
THE FIRST QUESTIONS
For dark matter and galactic size and mass, references have been hard to find. I found two from Wikipedia (I know):
1) Gnedin, O. Y., et al. The Astrophysical Journal. 720 (1), L108–L112 (2010). (See here)
2) McMillan, P. J., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 414 (3): 2446–2457 (2011).
Reference 1 gives a mass and size estimate of the Milky Way as 6.9x10^11 MSUN and 80 kpc, respectively. With the mass of the sun (MSUN) equal to about 2x10^30 kg, this leaves the total mass of the Milky Way as M_T = 1.38x10^42 kg, where the subscript T denotes the total mass, including a postulated “dark matter” component. Reference 2 gives a stellar mass, (M_S with subscript S) of the Milky Way as 6.43x10^10 MSUN, or M_S = 1.29x10^41 kg while giving a value of M_T = 1.26x10^12 MSUN. It is of note that the value of M_T in the second reference is nearly twice that of the first reference. While Wikipedia isn't always the best, these references are adequate for my purposes if indeed estimates for size and mass of the galaxy aren't known to any better than a factor of two.
Questions that I'd like answers or comments to are:
What is the best estimate for the amount of dark matter in our galaxy?
What is the size of our galaxy?
What is the mass of our galaxy?
How accurately do we think we know any of this?
And lastly, what are the best references concerning answers to the questions above?
I'm not looking for tomes, but rather some simple answers, although I know the answers may not be known right now. Arbitrageur had posted a link to the thesis by Carolin Wittmann, and I read about the first third of it, and skimmed through the rest, and learned quite a bit about astrophysics. But what I am looking for now is something more specific: I'd like the best known answers to the above questions. Specifically, are references 1 and 2 above as good as any right now? If so, I'll just stick with them.
I have other questions and comments for later, but for now I look forward to any comments concerning the above questions.
UPDATE ON PROGRESS
I've been working on a publication for close to three years now. The derivations of Maxwell's Equations as well as the Lorentz Force Equation are now complete, although they do need some further checking. Those derivations are based on a starting assumption of an aetherial substance not too different from everyday substances, plus some postulates governing density, flows and tension within that aether. My son, a graduate student in an M.D./physics Ph.D. program, and who has an undergraduate physics degree, has checked all the math and believes everything is sound. I have been through it several times. I will want one more check myself before sending something out for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, but I believe that part is done. It was done just before the 2020 New Year.
The completion of the electrrodynmaics part was the original goal, but I had an idea I wanted to check out regarding gravity. It soon became apparent that with one additional postulate, Newtonian gravity also came out, and that derivation was also completed right before the first of the year. The gravitational redshift easily followed. It then became quickly clear (thanks to blackcrowe and arbitrageur for their comment here) that dark energy is consistent with the theory. It looked dark matter would comes out naturally as well, and hence Maxwell, Lorentz, Newtonian Gravity, dark matter, and dark energy looked to be possible from a single aetherial underpinning.
Just after the first of the year, I noticed another effect from the model that might lead to a calculation of the perihelion advances, and a very simple calculation (based on Price and Rush) got to within 4% of experimental results. It took all of January and February until I realized a numerical calculation using java BigDecimals was needed to get to the needed precision for the calculation. But once done, the calculated perihelion advances match well to the experimental data. Next came time working on the derivation of dark matter effects, but before getting into it far at all I found that my Newtonian gravity derivation had a sign error. It took March, April and May to fix that problem. June was spent getting a good description of dark matter written up, along with a first draft concerning the perihelion analysis. An understanding of the gravitational bending of light appears not too far off. I'm hopeful it will all be done by the end of summer, with a paper off for peer review in the fall, but it is entirely possible it could take far longer.
Besides giving an update on progress, another motivation for writing this post now is to ask about references. I have found very good references for data on the perihelion advance, and plan to cover that further down in the thread at a later date. But for now we'll start with:
THE FIRST QUESTIONS
For dark matter and galactic size and mass, references have been hard to find. I found two from Wikipedia (I know):
1) Gnedin, O. Y., et al. The Astrophysical Journal. 720 (1), L108–L112 (2010). (See here)
2) McMillan, P. J., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 414 (3): 2446–2457 (2011).
Reference 1 gives a mass and size estimate of the Milky Way as 6.9x10^11 MSUN and 80 kpc, respectively. With the mass of the sun (MSUN) equal to about 2x10^30 kg, this leaves the total mass of the Milky Way as M_T = 1.38x10^42 kg, where the subscript T denotes the total mass, including a postulated “dark matter” component. Reference 2 gives a stellar mass, (M_S with subscript S) of the Milky Way as 6.43x10^10 MSUN, or M_S = 1.29x10^41 kg while giving a value of M_T = 1.26x10^12 MSUN. It is of note that the value of M_T in the second reference is nearly twice that of the first reference. While Wikipedia isn't always the best, these references are adequate for my purposes if indeed estimates for size and mass of the galaxy aren't known to any better than a factor of two.
Questions that I'd like answers or comments to are:
What is the best estimate for the amount of dark matter in our galaxy?
What is the size of our galaxy?
What is the mass of our galaxy?
How accurately do we think we know any of this?
And lastly, what are the best references concerning answers to the questions above?
I'm not looking for tomes, but rather some simple answers, although I know the answers may not be known right now. Arbitrageur had posted a link to the thesis by Carolin Wittmann, and I read about the first third of it, and skimmed through the rest, and learned quite a bit about astrophysics. But what I am looking for now is something more specific: I'd like the best known answers to the above questions. Specifically, are references 1 and 2 above as good as any right now? If so, I'll just stick with them.
I have other questions and comments for later, but for now I look forward to any comments concerning the above questions.
a reply to: delbertlarson
I had to search out answers for many of these questions when writing my recent thread describing predictions of the twin universe / bimetric relativity model. Unfortunately I'm away from home at the moment and can't access the references I used to answer some of those questions, but from memory the estimated mass of our galaxy varies by a factor of around 2 as you discovered. Here's a few articles that may be helpful:
I had to search out answers for many of these questions when writing my recent thread describing predictions of the twin universe / bimetric relativity model. Unfortunately I'm away from home at the moment and can't access the references I used to answer some of those questions, but from memory the estimated mass of our galaxy varies by a factor of around 2 as you discovered. Here's a few articles that may be helpful:
What's in a galaxy? A lot, apparently. We now have the most accurate measurements of the size and mass of the Milky Way ever calculated, and it's turned out to be more massive than we thought.
How massive? Well, about 1.5 trillion Suns' worth of mass (solar masses), within a radius of around 129,000 light-years.
That's over twice as much as previous estimates - according to a 2016 study, the Milky Way was estimated at around 700 billion solar masses.
The Latest Calculation of Milky Way's Mass Just Changed What We Know About Our Galaxy
Our galaxy is a whole lot bigger than it looks. New work finds that the Milky Way stretches nearly 2 million light-years across, more than 15 times wider than its luminous spiral disk. The number could lead to a better estimate of how massive the galaxy is and how many other galaxies orbit it.
Astronomers have long known that the brightest part of the Milky Way, the pancake-shaped disk of stars that houses the sun, is some 120,000 light-years across (SN: 8/1/19). Beyond this stellar disk is a disk of gas. A vast halo of dark matter, presumably full of invisible particles, engulfs both disks and stretches far beyond them (SN: 10/25/16). But because the dark halo emits no light, its diameter is hard to measure.
Now, Alis Deason, an astrophysicist at Durham University in England, and her colleagues have used nearby galaxies to locate the Milky Way’s edge. The precise diameter is 1.9 million light-years, give or take 0.4 million light-years, the team reports February 21 in a paper posted at arXiv.org.
Astronomers have found the edge of the Milky Way at last
You see, the best way to measure galactic mass is by using the stars and globular clusters found distributed far away from the galactic center or disk: in the galaxy's halo. Doing this for a galaxy like Andromeda is fascinating and educational, teaching us that the massive halo extends for approximately a million light-years in all directions, and contains a large amount of mass in this halo as well, in terms of both gas and dark matter. Although there are large uncertainties, the total mass estimates of Andromeda range from about 800 billion solar masses up to 1.5 trillion solar masses. These estimates are so different because they're arrived at by using different techniques, which poses an interesting puzzle at present.
By measuring the motions of globular clusters within our own Milky Way, however, we don't have to rely only on the radial (along our line-of-sight) measurement, but can obtain transverse (moving perpendicular to our line-of-sight) motions as well. A combination of new data from the Gaia mission and the Hubble Space Telescope has given us a total of 46 globular clusters with distances reaching as far as 130,000 light-years from Earth, and was able to pin down the Milky Way's mass more accurately than ever before.
The result?
The Gaia data alone indicates a mass of 1.3 trillion solar masses, while the combined Gaia/Hubble data (where Hubble captures the more distant globular clusters) yields a mass of 1.54 trillion solar masses, with an uncertainty of less than 100 billion solar masses.
Could The Milky Way Be More Massive Than Andromeda?
edit on 28/6/2020 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)
If you want to know the mass and size of the earth, you can get simple answers and they will have reasonable error bars.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
I'm not looking for tomes, but rather some simple answers, although I know the answers may not be known right now.
If you want to know the size and mass of the Milky Way, there are simple answers which have some assumptions built into them, but there's no guarantee the assumptions are all correct so in fact it can get very complicated. Unlike defining the size of the Earth which has an obvious edge, the Milky Way doesn't have a defined "edge" and a closer analogy on an Earth scale might be to ask questions like "where does the atmosphere end?" or "Where does space begin?". We have arbitrary answers to that like the Karman line, but there really is no exact edge of the atmosphere, it keeps getting thinner and thinner as you get further and further from the Earth.
Similarly, stellar density of the Milky way doesn't have an edge, but like the Earth's atmosphere it too decreases with distance from the center. To further complicate matters, it's not entirely a smooth gradient, and if considering the dark matter halo which is larger than the most luminous part of the milky way, that encompasses the satellite galaxies, perhaps a hundred of them.
Back to the atmosphere analogy, is the Karman line a good definition for the edge of space? It depends on what you're trying to do. I think to solve almost any problem related to atmospheric density, I would not use the Karman line, but rather I would use the actual density gradient for analytical purposes such as how high you can fly a balloon, how high you can fly a plane, how often you need to re-boost the international space station due to atmospheric drag, and so on, so the Karman line is somewhat arbitrary and that "line" is not useful for modeling or analysis.
When talking about the mass of a galaxy, the mass often referenced is "virial mass" but like trying to use the Karman line to define the edge of space, the virial mass may not be such a great way to define mass, though its use is quite common.
ON PHYSICAL SCALES OF DARK MATTER HALOS
So do you really want to know the virial mass? Or the static mass? If you're interested in dark matter, should the perhaps 150 satellite galaxies of the Milky Way be considered? We've discovered about 50 so far and this paper suggests 100 more may be waiting to be discovered for about 150 of them in total.
We question the importance of the role of formal virial quantities currently ubiquitously used in descriptions, models and relations that involve properties of dark matter structures. Concepts and relations basedon pseudo-evolving formal virial quantities do not properly reflect the actual evolution of dark matter halos and lead to an inaccurate picture of the physical evolution of our universe.
The Milky Way's satellites help reveal link between dark matter halos and galaxy formation
Just like we orbit the sun and the moon orbits us, the Milky Way has satellite galaxies with their own satellites. Drawing from data on those galactic neighbors, a new model suggests the Milky Way should have an additional 100 or so very faint satellite galaxies awaiting discovery...
Astrophysicists believe that dark matter is responsible for much of that structure, and now researchers at the Department of Energy's SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and the Dark Energy Survey have drawn on observations of faint galaxies around the Milky Way to place tighter constraints on the connection between the size and structure of galaxies and the dark matter halos that surround them.
Ever heard the expression "Can't see the forest for the trees?" If you want to know how big the forest is and how many trees are in it, it's hard to tell if you're in the forest. So, are you married to the idea of using the Milky Way? Why not consider other galaxies which we can actually see without having the problem of being inside them? For example, look at this huge halo around Andromeda found by Hubble, which it may not be capable of detecting for the Milky Way because we are inside the Milky Way:
Hubble Finds Giant Halo Around the Andromeda Galaxy
Scientists using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have discovered that the immense halo of gas enveloping the Andromeda galaxy, our nearest massive galactic neighbor, is about six times larger and 1,000 times more massive than previously measured. The dark, nearly invisible halo stretches about a million light-years from its host galaxy, halfway to our own Milky Way galaxy.
Note how the visible part of Andromeda is absolutely dwarfed by the massive halo Hubble found. So how big is it and how much mass does it have? Did you see including that halo shows 1000 times more mass than previously measured? That won't be in the virial mass numbers but it certainly sounds significant, doesn't it? So as with the edge of space being the Karman line, it's a useless definition for almost anything I want to do, for which I want actual quantities for density distribution. Same with galaxies I think, some arbitrary line for the "edge" of a galaxy seems as useless as the Karman line, again what I want to know are actual distributions of the density of all types of matter, including visible, dark baryonic, and dark non-baryonic.
We dont know if the Milky Way has a halo like Andromeda, a huge problem if you want to know the mass of the Milky Way:
What does this mean for our own galaxy? Because we live inside the Milky Way, scientists cannot determine whether or not such an equally massive and extended halo exists around our galaxy. It's a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.
Not only was my old thread closed, but now abovetopsecret is talking about possibly closing entirely in the next few months, due to lack of revenue since Google changed their algorithm in May. The owners are trying to sell ATS to someone interested in buying a site that's not making money which may or may not happen.
originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Astronomers have found the edge of the Milky Way at last
That's an interesting article, it says the Milky way diameter is about 2 million light years, meaning the radius is a little under a million light years.
Our galaxy is a whole lot bigger than it looks. New work finds that the Milky Way stretches nearly 2 million light-years across, more than 15 times wider than its luminous spiral disk. The number could lead to a better estimate of how massive the galaxy is and how many other galaxies orbit it.
So with the Milky Way halo having a radius of almost a million light years, and Andromeda halo having a radius of a million light years, given they are 2 million light years apart, those radii might be almost touching.
That article is more recent than the article I linked, so it looks like they figured out a way to determine the Milky Way has a halo like the one they found for Andromeda.
I think that size estimate of a million light years radius is something like 7 times larger than the estimate of 80 kpc diameter or 40 kpc radius mentioned in the OP.
edit on 2020628 by Arbitrageur because: clarification
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Thank you ChaoticOrder and Arbitrageur for your comments. You did not disappoint. While my theoretical effort is quite rigorous, I am a novice in the realm of experimental data and your comments are very helpful. I will dig some more.
Arbitrageur, you are quite right about my perhaps asking the question in an overly simple way. One thing of note is that, to first order, the result I am getting is that dark matter density grows as r from the center to the edge of the galactic core, and then falls off at a rate of 1/r^2 from the edge of the galactic core, although there is some additional contribution from baryonic matter outside the core. This leads to an amount of dark matter within an arbitrarily large sphere that increases linearly with r. That would go on forever if there were no other galaxies. However, the theory shows that at the midpoint between two galaxies the dark matter density goes to zero. Since there are galaxies in every direction, dark matter is bound in this way.
The most disturbing thing about your response is the pending possible closure of ATS. When I came here about four years ago I had a plan to try and get my colliding beam fusion idea (ECOFusion) some publicity. Prior to coming here I had worked for nearly a decade on ECOFusion. But I had other theoretical ideas (the preon model, a new absolute quantum mechanics, and the aether) that I wanted to wrap up first. I won't get to the ECOFusion threads for many months, so perhaps I won't get to it in time. I've had an "aetherial speculations" thread ready for almost three years as well. But it made little sense (in my thinking) to speculate about something that wasn't fully worked out yet, so that was on hold until the main scientific work was sent to the publisher.
So Google's actions may lead to ATS going down. Big tech is gaining more and more control. On another note, I recently found that my home page on Wikipedia was speedy-deleted. The home page isn't even indexed on search engines, and they said we could use it as we wished, so I had put all the pages that appear on infogalactic there, as well as a full copy of their deletion decision concerning the ABC Preon Model. I thought it might be useful to have that, should my ideas start being treated seriously. That way the pages could go up quickly. But the great censor came.
I also found that someone had tried to undelete (from Wikipedia) the ABC Preon Model back in 2018 or so. The response was that the original deleter should be contacted. I then found that I had contacted the original deleter (I had forgotten I did this) somewhat earlier than 2018, and that the original deleter was no longer active. It also looked like the original deleter, similar to the original editor who worked with me and then turned on me, was likely about 20 years old at the time of their actions at Wikipedia. The internet is a sewer, but one that has a lot of power. It is pretty sad that a mob of people barely past childhood (and some likely still in childhood) can wield veto power over what ideas get seen. But I suppose if you are in line with the prevailing winds it simply amplifies the zeitgeist and so it is found to be useful by those who gain power from the present system.
If ATS does go dark, anyone here who wants to contact me can use the contact us banner at the bottom of my personal webpage for an email address. (The link to my personal website is at the bottom of my posts).
Thank you ChaoticOrder and Arbitrageur for your comments. You did not disappoint. While my theoretical effort is quite rigorous, I am a novice in the realm of experimental data and your comments are very helpful. I will dig some more.
Arbitrageur, you are quite right about my perhaps asking the question in an overly simple way. One thing of note is that, to first order, the result I am getting is that dark matter density grows as r from the center to the edge of the galactic core, and then falls off at a rate of 1/r^2 from the edge of the galactic core, although there is some additional contribution from baryonic matter outside the core. This leads to an amount of dark matter within an arbitrarily large sphere that increases linearly with r. That would go on forever if there were no other galaxies. However, the theory shows that at the midpoint between two galaxies the dark matter density goes to zero. Since there are galaxies in every direction, dark matter is bound in this way.
The most disturbing thing about your response is the pending possible closure of ATS. When I came here about four years ago I had a plan to try and get my colliding beam fusion idea (ECOFusion) some publicity. Prior to coming here I had worked for nearly a decade on ECOFusion. But I had other theoretical ideas (the preon model, a new absolute quantum mechanics, and the aether) that I wanted to wrap up first. I won't get to the ECOFusion threads for many months, so perhaps I won't get to it in time. I've had an "aetherial speculations" thread ready for almost three years as well. But it made little sense (in my thinking) to speculate about something that wasn't fully worked out yet, so that was on hold until the main scientific work was sent to the publisher.
So Google's actions may lead to ATS going down. Big tech is gaining more and more control. On another note, I recently found that my home page on Wikipedia was speedy-deleted. The home page isn't even indexed on search engines, and they said we could use it as we wished, so I had put all the pages that appear on infogalactic there, as well as a full copy of their deletion decision concerning the ABC Preon Model. I thought it might be useful to have that, should my ideas start being treated seriously. That way the pages could go up quickly. But the great censor came.
I also found that someone had tried to undelete (from Wikipedia) the ABC Preon Model back in 2018 or so. The response was that the original deleter should be contacted. I then found that I had contacted the original deleter (I had forgotten I did this) somewhat earlier than 2018, and that the original deleter was no longer active. It also looked like the original deleter, similar to the original editor who worked with me and then turned on me, was likely about 20 years old at the time of their actions at Wikipedia. The internet is a sewer, but one that has a lot of power. It is pretty sad that a mob of people barely past childhood (and some likely still in childhood) can wield veto power over what ideas get seen. But I suppose if you are in line with the prevailing winds it simply amplifies the zeitgeist and so it is found to be useful by those who gain power from the present system.
If ATS does go dark, anyone here who wants to contact me can use the contact us banner at the bottom of my personal webpage for an email address. (The link to my personal website is at the bottom of my posts).
a reply to: madmac5150
You do realize that all the searches for Dark Matter (regardless of some of the headlines) have turned up "ZILCH !" ... The latest I have seen that failed was the hoopla about Axions maybe being part of dark matter. Many theories which are plentiful but alas the actual particle has not been found.
There is so much dust and rocky/icy space junk that some (unless they are funded for the search) are beginning to realize dark matter may not be needed to hold stuff together. Look at the latest findings of the halo around galaxies extending out for maybe a million light years; those halos are made from stuff... Just my opinion so take it for what it is worth.
What is the best estimate for the amount of dark matter in our galaxy?
You do realize that all the searches for Dark Matter (regardless of some of the headlines) have turned up "ZILCH !" ... The latest I have seen that failed was the hoopla about Axions maybe being part of dark matter. Many theories which are plentiful but alas the actual particle has not been found.
There is so much dust and rocky/icy space junk that some (unless they are funded for the search) are beginning to realize dark matter may not be needed to hold stuff together. Look at the latest findings of the halo around galaxies extending out for maybe a million light years; those halos are made from stuff... Just my opinion so take it for what it is worth.
edit on 727thk20 by 727Sky because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: 727Sky
In my aether model, dark matter comes about from a distortion of the aether itself. There is no particle associated with it.
Well you may be correct for all the others with mucho money have shown nothing
Check arxiv.org maybe. It is a preprints archive. But many of the papers get published/reviewed.
arxiv.org...
arxiv.org...
Well, I wanted to space this out more, but since we might be running out of time, here's the next question:
What is the latest theory on tension?
Back when I learned (and later as a TA, taught) sophomore level physics, tension was taught basically as a force that was transferred along the inside of a rope or a string, with that force manifesting itself at the ends. I asked my recently graduated son, and he said he had now been taught that tension is some sort of internal energy stored within the material under tension. I went online for a bit and found some similar thoughts. But I did not find what I now believe tension is.
For my aether model, the aether is a solid under tension. I have arrived at a belief that tension is really two overlapped forces that are equal in magnitude and directed oppositely. For tension, at the ends of a solid, only one of these two forces (the inward one) manifests itself, but internally both are present. Hence, when you cut a string under tension, the end of each piece accelerates oppositely to the other, since the forces that were there prior to the cut now manifest in what are now the ends of two strings. For compression there are again two overlapped forces, and cutting a solid under compression shows us that now it is the outward directed force that manifests at the end of the solid.
So in my thinking tension and compression are not vectors, nor tensors, nor scalars, nor some undefined internal energy, but rather something else - they are entities containing two component vectors. These entities do have a direction upon which one component vector is directed, with the other component vector directed oppositely. I have called such entities "biforces" in my upcoming publication, and I give it a new symbol , where the angle brackets indicate the bi-directionality of this new entity. (Note that an energy would be a scalar with no direction, a tensor has more components than are needed, and a vector doesn't have enough components. So I came to the conclusion than a new mathematical entity was desirable.)
But is the above concept really new? Does anyone know if thinking along these lines has already been developed? Presently my paper presents this as if it is a new proposal, but if someone has already developed it then I would want to reference their work. Or, as another possibility, is there a known problem with thinking about tension in this way?
The tension question, along with the OP questions, were the two areas that I wanted some advice on prior to submitting for peer review. I feel pretty comfortable with the rest of it.
By the way - your answer, Arbitrageur, does seem to support my model I believe. I was wondering why there wasn't evidence for quite a bit more dark matter far from galactic centers. My guess was that we hadn't found it yet. However, it appears that there may indeed be just such evidence.
What is the latest theory on tension?
Back when I learned (and later as a TA, taught) sophomore level physics, tension was taught basically as a force that was transferred along the inside of a rope or a string, with that force manifesting itself at the ends. I asked my recently graduated son, and he said he had now been taught that tension is some sort of internal energy stored within the material under tension. I went online for a bit and found some similar thoughts. But I did not find what I now believe tension is.
For my aether model, the aether is a solid under tension. I have arrived at a belief that tension is really two overlapped forces that are equal in magnitude and directed oppositely. For tension, at the ends of a solid, only one of these two forces (the inward one) manifests itself, but internally both are present. Hence, when you cut a string under tension, the end of each piece accelerates oppositely to the other, since the forces that were there prior to the cut now manifest in what are now the ends of two strings. For compression there are again two overlapped forces, and cutting a solid under compression shows us that now it is the outward directed force that manifests at the end of the solid.
So in my thinking tension and compression are not vectors, nor tensors, nor scalars, nor some undefined internal energy, but rather something else - they are entities containing two component vectors. These entities do have a direction upon which one component vector is directed, with the other component vector directed oppositely. I have called such entities "biforces" in my upcoming publication, and I give it a new symbol , where the angle brackets indicate the bi-directionality of this new entity. (Note that an energy would be a scalar with no direction, a tensor has more components than are needed, and a vector doesn't have enough components. So I came to the conclusion than a new mathematical entity was desirable.)
But is the above concept really new? Does anyone know if thinking along these lines has already been developed? Presently my paper presents this as if it is a new proposal, but if someone has already developed it then I would want to reference their work. Or, as another possibility, is there a known problem with thinking about tension in this way?
The tension question, along with the OP questions, were the two areas that I wanted some advice on prior to submitting for peer review. I feel pretty comfortable with the rest of it.
By the way - your answer, Arbitrageur, does seem to support my model I believe. I was wondering why there wasn't evidence for quite a bit more dark matter far from galactic centers. My guess was that we hadn't found it yet. However, it appears that there may indeed be just such evidence.
Hopefully my reply to your OP question was of some help, but I'm not sure I can be of much help on your tension question. Instead of leaving you hanging without an answer, I'll mention some things I know about tension, realizing they may not be of much help but still some of it I find interesting and since I have worked with polymers a long time I find their properties in tension very interesting.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
The tension question, along with the OP questions, were the two areas that I wanted some advice on prior to submitting for peer review. I feel pretty comfortable with the rest of it.
I remember analyzing tension-related problems in statics where a force is applied to the string, so you can then have a point where there are three forces in three directions and the vectors (two of them related to string tension) must all sum to zero, like this physics lab, pretty straightforward stuff:
Equilibrium and Statics
That's a macroscopic view of static tension, then there's the microscopic view dynamic tension when we put material samples in tensile strength testers and evaluate the properties like stress versus strain, and as you mentioned the energy. I've worked with various forms of the plastics including polyethylene and they have some interesting properties under tension. This schematic shows how one might model the valent angle bending and bond stretching potentials in 2D for say a polyethylene polymer:
Two-phase stretching of molecular chains
That model can help us to understand how Polymers can exhibit some interesting non-linear properties under tension as shown in the force versus change in length graphs in fig 3:
Other polymers can be modeled in 3-D like helix structures (found in DNA):
Those real world performance characteristics of materials under tension are of great interest to me and have applications in my work, but they may not help you at all with your model. Here's a metal test sample which experienced necking under tension, which I suppose is more complex to model and this source doesn't get much into modeling:
web.mit.edu...
Then there is string theory, which as my signature implies, I don't find very helpful yet due to the lack of experimental confirmation, but since you asked about modern tension theory, I don't think the modern ideas about tension of strings in string theory should be overlooked in such a discussion. As moebius said earlier, arxiv is a good place to find pre-prints which are probably usually a lot like the published articles. Here's an arxiv pre-print talking about the string tension in string theory, which like string theory itself seems rather speculative, and I'm not recommending this paper in particular, it's just an example to show that string tension in string theory is something you may want to look into relative to your ideas, and there may be better materials on that subject which you could find searching arxiv.
Dynamical String Tension in String Theory with Spacetime Weyl Invariance
The last item on tension is this paper talking about surface tension as an analogy for the cosmological constant having a small but non-zero value. You'll have to decide if it has any relevance to your idea but I thought it was interesting that it's relating an idea about tension to a property of space, which might be vaguely similar to your idea except you're trying to explain different properties of space and in your case it's perhaps not just an analogy like this:
Surface Tension and the Cosmological Constant
Well if you want to be a hero to the cosmology community, what they really need is an answer to the problem of why more dark matter doesn't appear at the core of galaxies. In the other thread I think you mentioned your dark matter model would predict higher densities of dark matter at the core. It's not just your model which does that, but also simulations have predicted that using other models, which is a problem because they don't match observation which is that there doesn't seem to be as much dark matter at the core as simulations predict. It's sometimes referred to as the core-cusp problem and there's even a Wikipedia article about it.
By the way - your answer, Arbitrageur, does seem to support my model I believe. I was wondering why there wasn't evidence for quite a bit more dark matter far from galactic centers. My guess was that we hadn't found it yet. However, it appears that there may indeed be just such evidence.
My guess is that we don't understand what dark matter is, so we're not modeling it properly, and that's why the simulations don't match observations. Somewhere in that problem might be a good clue to the nature of dark matter.
edit on 2020629 by Arbitrageur because: clarification
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Thanks for all the references. I looked into all of them, and read much. The essence of my original questions have been answered, and I believe I know how to go forward with my publication as I now know what to write about regarding references to our galaxy data and also how to frame the biforce discussion. Being referred to arXiv may also prove helpful. That is something I should become familiar with.
The book.pdf you link to as web.mit.edu and the article you reference on Two-phase stretching of molecular chains are closest to the point of my tension question, I believe. (The string theory references aren't as close.) I was unaware of the name "Poisson effect" found in web.mit.edu although the concept behind it seems to be a rather obvious one and it is one that I have spent some time working with. The book at web.mit.edu has a wealth of information, and I've only skimmed through so far. It may help with other questions that I did not ask here yet, questions that concern flows. In my derivations I needed a few "flow laws". One law relates to a flow of a longitudinal disturbance with respect to transverse disturbances within the solid aether, which struck me as odd. How does a flow of one type of displacement through another type of displacement lead to an internal flow force? But since it is pretty clearly there I just put it in as a postulate and moved on. I realized that someone with expertise in solids and tension might have insight into a deeper understanding of that question, and perhaps relevant information is found in web.mit.edu. I will spend more time with it and see. Chapter 4 looks promising.
My concern is looking at small elements of the aetherial solid, and the molecular chains reference also looks at small delta-l's in its method section. In that article, each small delta-l is somewhat similar to the aetherial elements in my analysis. The article uses F = dE/dx just above its Eq. 1, and while the deformation energy may not be as simple as one coming purely from Hooke's law alone (Hooke's law leads to Eq. 2 in the article but there are other terms) the question still remains - what direction will the force be at the point where we have two equal delta-l's joined together? Of course, if everything is symmetric, we get zero total force at that point. But what then is F = dE/dx? That F is not zero, and that is where I believe we may profit by a conceptual entity, a biforce, comprised of two forces overlapping and directed oppositely.
Of course, tension, stress and strain have been used in productive calculations for quite some time. We learn about Young's modulus in sophomore physics. COMSOL and other software does stress and strain analysis. It is just that I found it beneficial to look at things with this new entity, the biforce. It clarified, at least in my thinking. For instance, we can divide a string under tension into very small segments, similar to what is done in the molecular chains reference you link to. In looking at each individual segment, we might say it is stretched just a little bit. The force from that stretching on the ends of each segment then are directed inward from that stretch force, as we had to pull outward against that internal force to stretch that segment of string. But when we analyze the force on the string segment when it is oscillating, we use an outward directed force to calculate the oscillatory motion of that segment. The magnitude of these forces is the same, and we call it all tension, but it really involves two forces, each directed oppositely. This whole issue was something I was wrestling with until I realized there are really two forces here, and when they manifest.
So this is a real simple concept: tension is an entity comprised of two back to back forces. There would of course be three Cartesian components of such entities in a solid. I did not see any mention of such a concept in the references you cited. If such a concept has been proposed I suspect it isn't widely known. I can try a search at arXiv, but I am guessing it will be like looking for a needle in a haystack. I'll give it a try for due diligence.
-
My dark matter model has evolved from my very first idea proposed on your closed thread. In this improved version, hadronic mass, leptonic mass, and the mass-equivalent of energy all act as sources of a biforce field (a tension). Dark mass density is derived in the upcoming publication to be proportional to the magnitude of that biforce field. In a uniform sphere of mass, the biforce field will be zero at the center of the sphere and grow linearly to the edge. It will then fall off as 1/r^2 outside of that edge. For a galactic core with uniform stellar density inside, the dark matter density (rho) will be zero at the very center of the core and grow linearly to the core's edge. (rho = kr inside such a core.) The total mass inside an arbitrary sphere grows as the integral of 4 pi rho r^2 dr, or, since rho = kr inside the core, the integral is proportional to r^4 inside the core. So, far enough inside the core there is indeed very little dark matter. Then, outside the core the dark matter inside a sphere of radius r increases proportionally to r. (The dark matter density decreases as 1/r^2, but due to the Wronskian factor and the geometry of the integration you get that the total amount within a sphere grows as r.)
I see from the core-cusp article you link to that other dark matter models predict increasing density inside the core, but that the data shows something flatter. The simplistic model in the paragraph above actually shows a drop off with r for the dark matter density within a core of uniform mass density. Now when we include a large central object plus a non-uniform stellar density in the core, my model gets considerably more complicated. Also, as a relevant note, in my model we don't get a singularity for the large central object. (The large central object is presently called a black hole, but since it is no longer a singularity I resist that term.) If we have a large central object, the dark matter within it will have a density growing as r, and the dark matter from it will decrease as 1/r^2 outside of it. Additional concentric constant-density spherical distributions will similarly have dark matter contributions growing as r out to their edges, and then decreasing as 1/r^2 outside outside of their boundaries. The exact distribution would need some complicated calculations, and it suffers from the same Karman line type issue you point out above. But it looks to me that my model is fitting the data quite well. And since it all follows from the same underlying physical model that also leads to the equations of Maxwell, Lorentz forces, Newton's gravity, and calculations of the perihelion advances and gravitational red-shift, things are looking pretty good.
Thanks for all the references. I looked into all of them, and read much. The essence of my original questions have been answered, and I believe I know how to go forward with my publication as I now know what to write about regarding references to our galaxy data and also how to frame the biforce discussion. Being referred to arXiv may also prove helpful. That is something I should become familiar with.
The book.pdf you link to as web.mit.edu and the article you reference on Two-phase stretching of molecular chains are closest to the point of my tension question, I believe. (The string theory references aren't as close.) I was unaware of the name "Poisson effect" found in web.mit.edu although the concept behind it seems to be a rather obvious one and it is one that I have spent some time working with. The book at web.mit.edu has a wealth of information, and I've only skimmed through so far. It may help with other questions that I did not ask here yet, questions that concern flows. In my derivations I needed a few "flow laws". One law relates to a flow of a longitudinal disturbance with respect to transverse disturbances within the solid aether, which struck me as odd. How does a flow of one type of displacement through another type of displacement lead to an internal flow force? But since it is pretty clearly there I just put it in as a postulate and moved on. I realized that someone with expertise in solids and tension might have insight into a deeper understanding of that question, and perhaps relevant information is found in web.mit.edu. I will spend more time with it and see. Chapter 4 looks promising.
My concern is looking at small elements of the aetherial solid, and the molecular chains reference also looks at small delta-l's in its method section. In that article, each small delta-l is somewhat similar to the aetherial elements in my analysis. The article uses F = dE/dx just above its Eq. 1, and while the deformation energy may not be as simple as one coming purely from Hooke's law alone (Hooke's law leads to Eq. 2 in the article but there are other terms) the question still remains - what direction will the force be at the point where we have two equal delta-l's joined together? Of course, if everything is symmetric, we get zero total force at that point. But what then is F = dE/dx? That F is not zero, and that is where I believe we may profit by a conceptual entity, a biforce, comprised of two forces overlapping and directed oppositely.
Of course, tension, stress and strain have been used in productive calculations for quite some time. We learn about Young's modulus in sophomore physics. COMSOL and other software does stress and strain analysis. It is just that I found it beneficial to look at things with this new entity, the biforce. It clarified, at least in my thinking. For instance, we can divide a string under tension into very small segments, similar to what is done in the molecular chains reference you link to. In looking at each individual segment, we might say it is stretched just a little bit. The force from that stretching on the ends of each segment then are directed inward from that stretch force, as we had to pull outward against that internal force to stretch that segment of string. But when we analyze the force on the string segment when it is oscillating, we use an outward directed force to calculate the oscillatory motion of that segment. The magnitude of these forces is the same, and we call it all tension, but it really involves two forces, each directed oppositely. This whole issue was something I was wrestling with until I realized there are really two forces here, and when they manifest.
So this is a real simple concept: tension is an entity comprised of two back to back forces. There would of course be three Cartesian components of such entities in a solid. I did not see any mention of such a concept in the references you cited. If such a concept has been proposed I suspect it isn't widely known. I can try a search at arXiv, but I am guessing it will be like looking for a needle in a haystack. I'll give it a try for due diligence.
-
My dark matter model has evolved from my very first idea proposed on your closed thread. In this improved version, hadronic mass, leptonic mass, and the mass-equivalent of energy all act as sources of a biforce field (a tension). Dark mass density is derived in the upcoming publication to be proportional to the magnitude of that biforce field. In a uniform sphere of mass, the biforce field will be zero at the center of the sphere and grow linearly to the edge. It will then fall off as 1/r^2 outside of that edge. For a galactic core with uniform stellar density inside, the dark matter density (rho) will be zero at the very center of the core and grow linearly to the core's edge. (rho = kr inside such a core.) The total mass inside an arbitrary sphere grows as the integral of 4 pi rho r^2 dr, or, since rho = kr inside the core, the integral is proportional to r^4 inside the core. So, far enough inside the core there is indeed very little dark matter. Then, outside the core the dark matter inside a sphere of radius r increases proportionally to r. (The dark matter density decreases as 1/r^2, but due to the Wronskian factor and the geometry of the integration you get that the total amount within a sphere grows as r.)
I see from the core-cusp article you link to that other dark matter models predict increasing density inside the core, but that the data shows something flatter. The simplistic model in the paragraph above actually shows a drop off with r for the dark matter density within a core of uniform mass density. Now when we include a large central object plus a non-uniform stellar density in the core, my model gets considerably more complicated. Also, as a relevant note, in my model we don't get a singularity for the large central object. (The large central object is presently called a black hole, but since it is no longer a singularity I resist that term.) If we have a large central object, the dark matter within it will have a density growing as r, and the dark matter from it will decrease as 1/r^2 outside of it. Additional concentric constant-density spherical distributions will similarly have dark matter contributions growing as r out to their edges, and then decreasing as 1/r^2 outside outside of their boundaries. The exact distribution would need some complicated calculations, and it suffers from the same Karman line type issue you point out above. But it looks to me that my model is fitting the data quite well. And since it all follows from the same underlying physical model that also leads to the equations of Maxwell, Lorentz forces, Newton's gravity, and calculations of the perihelion advances and gravitational red-shift, things are looking pretty good.
a reply to: delbertlarson
Hi Delbert. Nice to see you making progress.
I would like to suggest that your problem with the stress tensors lie in your sphere.
Please consider a different shape. A cube. Where the 9 points of the matrix are the eight corners of the cube with the first number being the centre point making the 9 points.
Why a cube instead of sphere?
Although a hyper-sphere was created at the "big bang" by an expansion of energy in all directions. It can be simplified to six main directions.
These directions are opposite partner pairs of the three dimensions length, height and width.
The hyper-sphere is rotating and propagating. New points/particles are an emergent property of entanglement of the energies by the rotations.
A transform occurs. Creating the cube. A flat, infinite universe.
Nearly 350 years ago. An Irish mathematician named Sir William Rowan Hamilton invented the quaternions. Which i believe are what modern science now calls the quarks. Of which. I continue to say are misnamed and should be considered as six main directions.
The rotation of the quaternions creates entanglements and octonions. These octonions form the cube (the cube in my model).
These videos explain quaternions and octonions in the Standard Model according to Dr Cohl Furey. She also links the quarks as quaternions. Although she uses the modern science terms for quarks. If she used the quarks as directions (opposing partner pairs of the three dimensions). It would make more sense.
www.youtube.com...
My explanation for using a cube is my opinion.
On dark matter. I did a thread on it a while back now according to my model. It shows a halo. Was supposed to only be nine WIMP's. Seems like a lot more particles than what i thought i had. Looks a little like a shell holding the observable universe to the outer non observable universe. Holding them together as the whole universe perhaps.
It might be an idea for you to discuss your proposals on some social media sites. They have physics groups etc.
I wasn't going to reply to anything on ATS again. And have tried to give you as much info as possible to support using a cube. Whether you consider it or not. That's up to you.
Good luck Delbert.
Hi Delbert. Nice to see you making progress.
I would like to suggest that your problem with the stress tensors lie in your sphere.
Please consider a different shape. A cube. Where the 9 points of the matrix are the eight corners of the cube with the first number being the centre point making the 9 points.
Why a cube instead of sphere?
Although a hyper-sphere was created at the "big bang" by an expansion of energy in all directions. It can be simplified to six main directions.
These directions are opposite partner pairs of the three dimensions length, height and width.
The hyper-sphere is rotating and propagating. New points/particles are an emergent property of entanglement of the energies by the rotations.
A transform occurs. Creating the cube. A flat, infinite universe.
Nearly 350 years ago. An Irish mathematician named Sir William Rowan Hamilton invented the quaternions. Which i believe are what modern science now calls the quarks. Of which. I continue to say are misnamed and should be considered as six main directions.
The rotation of the quaternions creates entanglements and octonions. These octonions form the cube (the cube in my model).
These videos explain quaternions and octonions in the Standard Model according to Dr Cohl Furey. She also links the quarks as quaternions. Although she uses the modern science terms for quarks. If she used the quarks as directions (opposing partner pairs of the three dimensions). It would make more sense.
www.youtube.com...
My explanation for using a cube is my opinion.
On dark matter. I did a thread on it a while back now according to my model. It shows a halo. Was supposed to only be nine WIMP's. Seems like a lot more particles than what i thought i had. Looks a little like a shell holding the observable universe to the outer non observable universe. Holding them together as the whole universe perhaps.
It might be an idea for you to discuss your proposals on some social media sites. They have physics groups etc.
I wasn't going to reply to anything on ATS again. And have tried to give you as much info as possible to support using a cube. Whether you consider it or not. That's up to you.
Good luck Delbert.
edit on 8-7-2020 by blackcrowe because: Add another yt link as wasn't sure it was working.
a reply to: blackcrowe
Thanks for your thoughts. In addition to reading your post, I checked out the video you linked to as well. You and Dr. Furey are approaching things entirely differently from me. The way you are approaching things (I believe, please correct me if I am mistaken) is what I would call "the mathematical way" to do physics. It puts you in the company of those who advanced "modern physics" and it is the way quantum mechanics and relativity are presently taught. By this I mean that the mathematical constructs have primacy, and the equations are then developed that can lead to experimental tests. No underlying physical model is needed. I on the other hand believe that quantum mechanics should be taught differently and that relativity should be discarded completely. Your way (I believe) is more in line with present thinking. As you wish me luck, I wish you luck as well. Progress can be made in more than one way.
My approach is what I would call "the physical way" to do physics. Its foundation is that of assumed underlying physical substances and it uses the ancient concepts of time and Euclidean space. From that underpinning, math is developed to describe the physical substances. It is the approach to physics that is very natural for people to think about and understand, and it was prominent prior to 1905.
Do you participate in some social media groups where discussions of my ideas might be welcome? Can you let me know what they are? If ATS is going away it would be good to have another outlet where ideas get some serious feedback. I see some here are going to Discord, but it was rather invasive as it would pop things up when I was working someplace else. I really like the forum here at ATS far better, as we can turn it off when we want to. Turning it off is something I wish we could do with all of the big tech - and only use it when we want to. A bygone era perhaps.
I can and plan to publish, but I am afraid almost no one reads. The problem is that everyone is writing and few are reading. It is a product of everyone chasing money through grants, with the publications being the "product" paid for by the government bodies.
-
I continue to make progress. I've finished a first pass at gravitational light bending earlier this week. Next, the effect that leads to the factor of two in light bending over its "Newtonian" value must be put into the perihelion calculations. The last step is to overview the effects of the Lorentz Transformation on the physics of stars and galaxies moving fast with respect to us. At that point I will have reached the end of the core parts of what I wished to accomplish for this one publication. Those remaining core parts of the effort could be done within the next week or two if all goes well. After that comes checking, summarizing and referencing. That part will likely take one to four months, as this is a big paper. I hope ATS is still around at the time I complete it.
Thanks for your thoughts. In addition to reading your post, I checked out the video you linked to as well. You and Dr. Furey are approaching things entirely differently from me. The way you are approaching things (I believe, please correct me if I am mistaken) is what I would call "the mathematical way" to do physics. It puts you in the company of those who advanced "modern physics" and it is the way quantum mechanics and relativity are presently taught. By this I mean that the mathematical constructs have primacy, and the equations are then developed that can lead to experimental tests. No underlying physical model is needed. I on the other hand believe that quantum mechanics should be taught differently and that relativity should be discarded completely. Your way (I believe) is more in line with present thinking. As you wish me luck, I wish you luck as well. Progress can be made in more than one way.
My approach is what I would call "the physical way" to do physics. Its foundation is that of assumed underlying physical substances and it uses the ancient concepts of time and Euclidean space. From that underpinning, math is developed to describe the physical substances. It is the approach to physics that is very natural for people to think about and understand, and it was prominent prior to 1905.
Do you participate in some social media groups where discussions of my ideas might be welcome? Can you let me know what they are? If ATS is going away it would be good to have another outlet where ideas get some serious feedback. I see some here are going to Discord, but it was rather invasive as it would pop things up when I was working someplace else. I really like the forum here at ATS far better, as we can turn it off when we want to. Turning it off is something I wish we could do with all of the big tech - and only use it when we want to. A bygone era perhaps.
I can and plan to publish, but I am afraid almost no one reads. The problem is that everyone is writing and few are reading. It is a product of everyone chasing money through grants, with the publications being the "product" paid for by the government bodies.
-
I continue to make progress. I've finished a first pass at gravitational light bending earlier this week. Next, the effect that leads to the factor of two in light bending over its "Newtonian" value must be put into the perihelion calculations. The last step is to overview the effects of the Lorentz Transformation on the physics of stars and galaxies moving fast with respect to us. At that point I will have reached the end of the core parts of what I wished to accomplish for this one publication. Those remaining core parts of the effort could be done within the next week or two if all goes well. After that comes checking, summarizing and referencing. That part will likely take one to four months, as this is a big paper. I hope ATS is still around at the time I complete it.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
So this is a real simple concept: tension is an entity comprised of two back to back forces. There would of course be three Cartesian components of such entities in a solid. I did not see any mention of such a concept in the references you cited. If such a concept has been proposed I suspect it isn't widely known.
I might be missing your point here but I thought the diagram showing the angles in this molecular model for tension shows in this case it's not always strictly "back to back" which to me implies angles of 180 degrees. These angles are not all 180 degrees in this model:
Two-phase stretching of molecular chains
On a larger scale, there are of course back to back forces 180 degrees apart when the test sample is stretched in the tensile tester, but internally the model is different and more complex.
"serious feedback"
originally posted by: delbertlarson
Do you participate in some social media groups where discussions of my ideas might be welcome? Can you let me know what they are? If ATS is going away it would be good to have another outlet where ideas get some serious feedback. I see some here are going to Discord, but it was rather invasive as it would pop things up when I was working someplace else. I really like the forum here at ATS far better, as we can turn it off when we want to. Turning it off is something I wish we could do with all of the big tech - and only use it when we want to. A bygone era perhaps.
I can and plan to publish, but I am afraid almost no one reads. The problem is that everyone is writing and few are reading. It is a product of everyone chasing money through grants, with the publications being the "product" paid for by the government bodies.
You may or may not get any reply, but there are numerous physicists on physicsforums.com. They seem to be pretty picky about what topics are discussed, and they have a list of "credible journals", which if a paper gets published in one of those, apparently it can be discussed there. Papers that aren't published in what they consider "credible journals" won't get discussed, I've seen them just lock the thread and say they won't even allow the discussion. There was an ATS poster of Electric Universe concepts who tried to post there and they actually gave him a chance to post something credible like a circuit diagram of how the sun was powered by electricity, but he had squat for models or data so he got shut down pretty fast after not being able to give basic info like a circuit diagram for the electric sun. They get a lot of crap like that which they get tired of screening out so I think that's why they stick to the "credible journals" thing as a "crank filter", though it might possibly filter out a legitimate idea here or there. They updated their list of "credible journals" last December, so if you get published in one of those you'd have a good forum to discuss your paper.
Credible journal list at physicsforums
They have some rules like, they don't allow discussion of Lorentz aether theory, not because its wrong, but because there's no way to distinguish it from Einstein's relativity by experiment, which I think you have said yourself at times, though at other times you've suggested maybe there's a way to make a distinction experimentally, though maybe only with your aether theory and not Lorentz's.
They do apparently allow discussion of preon theories which are published in their list of "credible journals". Here's a thread which talks about preon models apparently excluded by LHC data:
Preon quark models excluded by LHC
That's from their "Beyond the Standard Model" forum where they relax the rules compared to the speculative nature of the topic, and they even allow arxiv preprint links which haven't been reviewed and published yet, but they don't allow "personal theories". But I don't see how they could stop you from making an account called "Mr_Curiosity" or whatever other random name you want, and making a post to ask "what do you guys think about this preon theory by Delbert Larson?"
Due to the speculative nature of the subject, not-yet-published papers uploaded to databases like ArXiv or presented at reputable conferences are also acceptable for discussion. (Note that references to such unreviewed sources remain unacceptable in the other subforums dedicated to more established areas of physics.)
This forum may not be used to propose new ideas or personal theories. All threads of this nature that are started in this forum will be removed by Mentors.
But apparently if you make an account named Delbert Larson and say it's your theory it sounds like you can't ask about your "personal theory" unless I'm misreading the rule about "This forum may not be used to propose new ideas or personal theories." Maybe that only refers to the crank junk they get from people who haven't studied physics seriously, but it's not really clear if that's the case.
edit on 202079 by Arbitrageur because: clarification
a reply to: delbertlarson
Thanks Delbert. I appreciate your reply.
The site i would suggest is Linkedin. It is a "professional" site.
There are many groups to join to. Or, you can start your own group where others can join for discussion.
I don't know if this site would be of any use to you. But. It is another platform.
There are real professionals (relevant to needs) there. There are also others who don't seem to be what they claim to be. Profiles can be seen. Where claims of status, employment etc is listed. These details can be verified by others (colleagues) and will give a count of verification. The higher the better.
You will be free to discuss any part of your theories. And the rules are mainly to help other members learn. This slackness of rules allows for the problem in above paragraph.
You can connect with other members. Where you can chat privately on site. These connections might be useful for you.
I am not endorsing this site. Just letting you know about it.
All the best Delbert.
Thanks Delbert. I appreciate your reply.
The site i would suggest is Linkedin. It is a "professional" site.
There are many groups to join to. Or, you can start your own group where others can join for discussion.
I don't know if this site would be of any use to you. But. It is another platform.
There are real professionals (relevant to needs) there. There are also others who don't seem to be what they claim to be. Profiles can be seen. Where claims of status, employment etc is listed. These details can be verified by others (colleagues) and will give a count of verification. The higher the better.
You will be free to discuss any part of your theories. And the rules are mainly to help other members learn. This slackness of rules allows for the problem in above paragraph.
You can connect with other members. Where you can chat privately on site. These connections might be useful for you.
I am not endorsing this site. Just letting you know about it.
All the best Delbert.
a reply to: Arbitrageur
To be a hero in science the work must be read and understood. We need to start somewhere: What do YOU think? Doesn't the model I've outlined above do what is desired, which is to achieve a decreasing dark matter density in galactic cores as well as provide for constant velocities of stars orbiting at great distances from galactic cores? Do you see any error?
Yes, I meant 180 degrees. Yes, what you show in the copied figure is a modeling different than that. But the key point is that the figure shows multiple springs, and within each spring there will be 180 degree, back to back, vector forces. Each spring itself will have forces directed inward when stretched, or outward when compressed. We can attach more than one spring to the same fixed point, but then we have multiple springs. Each individual spring still has the back to back forces we call tension. In a three dimensional solid there can be three components to the complete tension field, with each of those three components comprised of back to back (180 degree) forces.
Do you now see better what I am thinking? Or let me know why there may still be an issue and I can try to be more clear.
I checked out the list. Physics Essays, which gets reviews from accredited scientists, is not there. When I just googled "Physics Essays" the second suggestion is "Physics Essays crackpot". Quite discouraging. So much so, I began to type, and realized it was turning into a rant. And indeed, that encapsulates the trap that one can fall into: 1) Author proposes new idea; 2) work rejected via name calling (crackpot) rather than reasoning; 3) author rants; 4) original name calling verified by the rant; case closed. So I will try to gather my thoughts and present them appropriately in a future post on this thread.
I also checked the "Beyond the Standard Model" physicsForum as you linked to. Almost all threads there have less than 10 comments, very often 2 or 3. Pretty weak compared to ATS. I hope a buyer is found for ATS.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Well if you want to be a hero to the cosmology community, what they really need is an answer to the problem of why more dark matter doesn't appear at the core of galaxies.
To be a hero in science the work must be read and understood. We need to start somewhere: What do YOU think? Doesn't the model I've outlined above do what is desired, which is to achieve a decreasing dark matter density in galactic cores as well as provide for constant velocities of stars orbiting at great distances from galactic cores? Do you see any error?
I might be missing your point here but I thought the diagram showing the angles in this molecular model for tension shows in this case it's not always strictly "back to back" which to me implies angles of 180 degrees. These angles are not all 180 degrees in this model:
Yes, I meant 180 degrees. Yes, what you show in the copied figure is a modeling different than that. But the key point is that the figure shows multiple springs, and within each spring there will be 180 degree, back to back, vector forces. Each spring itself will have forces directed inward when stretched, or outward when compressed. We can attach more than one spring to the same fixed point, but then we have multiple springs. Each individual spring still has the back to back forces we call tension. In a three dimensional solid there can be three components to the complete tension field, with each of those three components comprised of back to back (180 degree) forces.
Do you now see better what I am thinking? Or let me know why there may still be an issue and I can try to be more clear.
You may or may not get any reply, but there are numerous physicists on physicsforums.com. They seem to be pretty picky about what topics are discussed, and they have a list of "credible journals", which if a paper gets published in one of those, apparently it can be discussed there. They updated their list of "credible journals" last December, so if you get published in one of those you'd have a good forum to discuss your paper.
I checked out the list. Physics Essays, which gets reviews from accredited scientists, is not there. When I just googled "Physics Essays" the second suggestion is "Physics Essays crackpot". Quite discouraging. So much so, I began to type, and realized it was turning into a rant. And indeed, that encapsulates the trap that one can fall into: 1) Author proposes new idea; 2) work rejected via name calling (crackpot) rather than reasoning; 3) author rants; 4) original name calling verified by the rant; case closed. So I will try to gather my thoughts and present them appropriately in a future post on this thread.
I also checked the "Beyond the Standard Model" physicsForum as you linked to. Almost all threads there have less than 10 comments, very often 2 or 3. Pretty weak compared to ATS. I hope a buyer is found for ATS.
originally posted by: 727Sky
originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: 727Sky
In my aether model, dark matter comes about from a distortion of the aether itself. There is no particle associated with it.
Well you may be correct for all the others with mucho money have shown nothing
This statement is rather ignorant for two reasons...
1) on the grand scheme of things, Dark Matter experiments don't have 'mucho' money. They are often run on shoe string budgets by a small number of people, making salaries far less than the amount of work and effort would give them if they just left and joined industry.
2) They have not shown nothing, it is easy for people to think they failed because they didn't come with some "hey looks we detected it here"
What has happened is the development of several different detector technologies, all of which can be used or have application in other fields. The null measurement is also not a failure, we are sweeping a parameter space which theoretically is very large.
The postulation from Xenon1T about axions is not a very well motivated one, but what is for sure is that they do see an excess of events above their background model and tried to explain it with "Hey maybe this is axions" its highly tenuous but, its an interesting interpretation.
These experiments are hardly ever failures, they produce very interesting science and the attention to detail required is extreme. Such, having the kind of attitude towards them so often displayed here is why our knowledge of the universe progresses at a snails pace because of the level of anti-science so prevalent in society
a reply to: delbertlarson
Hi Delbert.
I think i can still help you fix your tensor problem.
Please put aside the differences of our models. And consider this a geometrical analysis of a shape. Your sphere.
The sphere sounds vague. I hope you will agree we are discussing a hyper-sphere of three dimensions. Three spheres. Length, height and width. A 3d space?
In my first reply. I said i thought your problem lie in the sphere. A shape. And a cube would solve the problem.
The cube was transformed from a hyper-sphere. So, i can simply reapply (plug) the hyper-sphere to the cube. Extend the axis' and plot the tensors on the sphere.
The diagram below shows a 3d space/hyper-sphere. Where each dimension is divided in two by a central point. The aspects of which are directions. And are vectors.
The cube has a set of four axis'. Two of which i believe are what are known as the W and Z bosons. And so are labelled in the diagram. The W axis is a scalar. The Z axis is a tensor along with the central point. All four axis' display both the scalar and tensor aspects.
The other two axis' of the four are labelled as ? And as this is a 2d representation of a 3d shape. One of the ? axis' is hidden by the centre. It runs from nearest top corner to furthest bottom corner of cube hidden by the centre. Labelled at the centre. These ? axis' are real axis' in the cube. However. I do not know if these axis' also have a function. Or are reflected/mirrored aspects/effects of the other two W and Z.
Other labels in the diagram. V denotes vector. S + T denote scalar and tensor aspects. T at centre is a tensor also.
I hope this helps.
Hi Delbert.
I think i can still help you fix your tensor problem.
Please put aside the differences of our models. And consider this a geometrical analysis of a shape. Your sphere.
The sphere sounds vague. I hope you will agree we are discussing a hyper-sphere of three dimensions. Three spheres. Length, height and width. A 3d space?
In my first reply. I said i thought your problem lie in the sphere. A shape. And a cube would solve the problem.
The cube was transformed from a hyper-sphere. So, i can simply reapply (plug) the hyper-sphere to the cube. Extend the axis' and plot the tensors on the sphere.
The diagram below shows a 3d space/hyper-sphere. Where each dimension is divided in two by a central point. The aspects of which are directions. And are vectors.
The cube has a set of four axis'. Two of which i believe are what are known as the W and Z bosons. And so are labelled in the diagram. The W axis is a scalar. The Z axis is a tensor along with the central point. All four axis' display both the scalar and tensor aspects.
The other two axis' of the four are labelled as ? And as this is a 2d representation of a 3d shape. One of the ? axis' is hidden by the centre. It runs from nearest top corner to furthest bottom corner of cube hidden by the centre. Labelled at the centre. These ? axis' are real axis' in the cube. However. I do not know if these axis' also have a function. Or are reflected/mirrored aspects/effects of the other two W and Z.
Other labels in the diagram. V denotes vector. S + T denote scalar and tensor aspects. T at centre is a tensor also.
I hope this helps.
new topics
-
A fix for the Trans players in sports
US Political Madness: 5 minutes ago -
Petition Calling for General Election at 564,016 and rising Fast
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 3 hours ago -
Rep. Alexandria O. Cortez Says Forcing People to Use The Correct Bathroom is Dangerous.
US Political Madness: 9 hours ago -
Cooperation zones
World War Three: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
France gives Ukraine license to fire long-range missiles at Russia
World War Three: 14 hours ago, 9 flags -
Rep. Alexandria O. Cortez Says Forcing People to Use The Correct Bathroom is Dangerous.
US Political Madness: 9 hours ago, 5 flags -
Petition Calling for General Election at 564,016 and rising Fast
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 3 hours ago, 5 flags -
Ok this is some BS now WTH
Rant: 12 hours ago, 4 flags -
Cooperation zones
World War Three: 10 hours ago, 3 flags -
Stalker 2 - Review from a Veteran
Video Games: 17 hours ago, 2 flags -
A fix for the Trans players in sports
US Political Madness: 5 minutes ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
Petition Calling for General Election at 564,016 and rising Fast
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 15 • : AdultMaleHumanUK -
A fix for the Trans players in sports
US Political Madness • 0 • : network dude -
Well, here we go red lines crossed Biden gives the go ahead to use long range missiles
World War Three • 340 • : Xtrozero -
Jaguar Rebrand Video Causes "WTF?" Moment - Seriously Weird
Automotive Discussion • 32 • : gortex -
Biden's "Reckless" Decision To Escalate Russia-Ukraine War
World War Three • 124 • : PrivateAngel -
Well we know Putins ICBMs won't fail in their silos
World War Three • 213 • : Xtrozero -
Rep. Alexandria O. Cortez Says Forcing People to Use The Correct Bathroom is Dangerous.
US Political Madness • 21 • : UpIsNowDown2 -
Congress 2024 - We do not want me in our ladies rooms
US Political Madness • 21 • : TheSingleBillie -
Results of the use of the Oreshnik missile system in Dnepropetrovsk
World War Three • 166 • : Oldcarpy2 -
Cooperation zones
World War Three • 14 • : nugget1