Scientists have come up with a new potential method for detecting dark matter

Polycount

Posts: 2,789   +571
Staff member

Dark matter is one of the most mysterious things in our universe -- though some of its effects are believed to be observable, it is incredibly difficult to detect, and we still don't even know what sort of particles it is composed of.

"We still don't know what dark matter is," said UC David professor of physics John Terning. "The primary candidate for a long time was the WIMP, but it looks like that's almost completely ruled out."

WIMP, for the unaware, stands for "Weakly Interacting Massive Particles," which is the substance that scientists have long assumed dark matter is made up of. As Terning points out, though, despite "years of effort," no experiment designed to detect the particle has proven successful; which seems to imply dark matter is composed of something else entirely.

So, Terning and his partner Christopher Verhaaren have essentially gone back to the drawing board and adopted a different tactic. As Phys.org writes, an "alternative model" to WIMP is "dark electromagnetism," which includes "dark photons" and various other particle types.

If dark matter is composed of these photons, they should theoretically interact with a "dark magnetic monopole." If so, Verhaaren and Terning believe they can detect these interactions by paying attention to any "[changes] of phase in [the monopole's] wave function." Apparently, the monopoles -- which are always passing through the universe and Earth itself -- could be examined when they reach our planet after being "excited" by the Sun.

The full explanation is obviously quite technical, but if you're feeling up to it, you can read Verhaaren and Terning's full paper on their new theories for detecting dark matter right here.

Permalink to story.

 

yRaz

Posts: 3,533   +3,316
We'll never know. Some things in life are just never meant to be discovered. We're nothing in this universe.
Well we did discover dark matter, we just don't know what it is yet. We can measure it's effects on the universe,it has nothing to do with what is meant to be discovered.
 

ckm88

Posts: 374   +260
Well we did discover dark matter, we just don't know what it is yet. We can measure it's effects on the universe,it has nothing to do with what is meant to be discovered.
I meant to say understood. :)
 

Tantor

Posts: 91   +126
We'll never know. Some things in life are just never meant to be discovered. We're nothing in this universe.
Well we did discover dark matter, we just don't know what it is yet. We can measure it's effects on the universe,it has nothing to do with what is meant to be discovered.
Dark matter is a mathematical artifact. They 'needed' a gigantic invisible mass in order to make up for a problem with the mathematics. There is no compelling reason to believe Dark Matter exists at all.

There are many examples of mathematical artifacts that have no corresponding manifestation in reality. Just because the math works doesn't mean it matches reality.

Dark Matter is another one of these mathematical red herrings, like string theory, that will have wasted generations of mental energy. Most likely they'll pursue them for another generation then finally start looking for real answers.
 

Dimitrios

Posts: 727   +565
We'll never know. Some things in life are just never meant to be discovered. We're nothing in this universe.

Our eyes and brain can only understand so much. I also think we were placed far far far away from other intelligent life for a reason.

Go watch the torture and other sick acts on websites like bestgore, LiveLeak & thegudda and you will soon see how far back humans are from evolving.
 

yRaz

Posts: 3,533   +3,316
Dark matter is a mathematical artifact. They 'needed' a gigantic invisible mass in order to make up for a problem with the mathematics. There is no compelling reason to believe Dark Matter exists at all.

There are many examples of mathematical artifacts that have no corresponding manifestation in reality. Just because the math works doesn't mean it matches reality.

Dark Matter is another one of these mathematical red herrings, like string theory, that will have wasted generations of mental energy. Most likely they'll pursue them for another generation then finally start looking for real answers.
Well the reason that finding dark matter is so important is because of that artifact. Either it exists or everything we thought we knew about quantum mechanics and general realtivity is wrong. That is not a small issue, this isn't some statistical anomaly that can be accounted for by a margin of error.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,714   +1,817
Dark matter is a mathematical artifact. They 'needed' a gigantic invisible mass in order to make up for a problem with the mathematics. There is no compelling reason to believe Dark Matter exists at all.

There are many examples of mathematical artifacts that have no corresponding manifestation in reality. Just because the math works doesn't mean it matches reality.

Dark Matter is another one of these mathematical red herrings, like string theory, that will have wasted generations of mental energy. Most likely they'll pursue them for another generation then finally start looking for real answers.
Dark Matter is not a mathematical artifact. It a strict requirement to explain very simply observed phenomena in the universe. The easiest to understand is this:

The planets in the solar system revolve around the sun in a mathematically precise manner, with the closer planets revolving faster and the farther planets revolving slower. The fact that we can send spacecraft to Pluto accurately is a testament to how precisely we understand these mathematics.

However the same does not hold true for a rotating galaxy. The outer visible parts of galaxies are rotating too fast when compared to the inner parts, which can be most easily explained by the entire galaxy being contained within a pool of dark matter (densest at the center, just like the visible galaxy) which has a mass, and therefore gravity, but isn't visible to any of our current instruments. It's pretty easy to measure this dark matter gravitationally and the measurements are well correlated from galaxy to galaxy. This isn't the only evidence for dark matter, just the easiest example.

There have been loads of theories about what dark matter is since it's discovery in the 1930s, and a lot of tests have been conducted which have done a great job of ruling out a lot of those theories. Of course many tests are continuing. MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) is a popular one among some people but it requires you to break one of the key tenets of science: that the fundamental rules which govern nature at one scale (the planets in my first example) do not apply or are changed at another scale (the galaxies in my second example). This type of special rule breaking is not how science works and a number of tests have not supported it, but it's not dead yet and a lot of people still like it.

We'll see if Dark Electromagnetism goes this way or not.
 

yRaz

Posts: 3,533   +3,316
No. Actually, gravity is the reason the search for dark matter/energy exists. The universe is behaving as though it has much more mass than we can account for observationally. However, the search for "dark stuff" to explain that behavior ignores the rest of the equation related to that mystery, IE the continuing expansion and acceleration thereof the universe. Scientists are using General and Special relativity to look for the "dark stuff". They're only looking at one aspect of a bigger mystery expecting to find an answer that doesn't and can't exist because they're failing to see the bigger picture.
Dark anything in science is just something we don't know what it is yet.
 

ChrisH1

Posts: 155   +73
Dark matter is imho an astrophysical con job. It's the 'ether' of the 21st century. The outside bits of galaxies revolve faster than we expect, so there must be a 'pool' of matter we can't see.

People propose it must be some kind of special, hard to detect esoteric matter with interesting properties that we can't see for some reason, but there's no particular need to suppose it's anything other than boring, plain old ordinary every-day matter that we can't see for some reason.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,615   +3,805
Well the reason that finding dark matter is so important is because of that artifact. Either it exists or everything we thought we knew about quantum mechanics and general realtivity is wrong. That is not a small issue, this isn't some statistical anomaly that can be accounted for by a margin of error.
That's the whole point of science, though.

Newtonian mechanics worked well until we figured out that something was causing the orbit of Mercury to differ from that predicted by Newtonian mechanics. It took Einstein to figure that one out. You can argue that Einstein extended Newtonian mechanics, however, rather than replaced them. In some cases, though, relativity is required to give the most accurate answer so does that make relativity an extension of Newtonian mechanics or not?

Would science really care if it had to throw out everything it currently thinks it knows? As I see it, Science, itself, would not care and would be really excited to have that happen; some scientists, OTOH, likely would disagree just as much as some scientists dismissed Einstein - at first.
Dark Matter is not a mathematical artifact. It a strict requirement to explain very simply observed phenomena in the universe.
The thing is is that the mathematics disagrees with the observations unless we insert some chocolate fudge matter into the universe, however, no one knows just what that chocolate fudge matter is. That makes the chocolate fudge matter a postulate that is required to make the mathematics work. To me, that could mean at least one of two different things:
  1. The chocolate fudge matter exists and someone, someday will discover its true nature
  2. The mathematics, itself, is incorrect.
It has been my experience that forcing something to work usually does not yield the best possible solution. Personally, I lean towards the mathematical artifact, and/or incomplete mathematics.

From my experience, there are such mathematical artifacts depending on the mathematical methods used. Matrix algebra, AKA, Linear Algebra, yields artifacts that disappear when viewed from the standpoint of Clifford Algebra, AKA, Geometric Algebra. For instance, when expressed with Linear Algebra, there are four equations that are required for the famous Maxwell's equations. In Geometric Algebra, those four equations reduce to one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_algebra

In addition, Linear Algebra and other mathematics require the use of "imaginary", I.e, complex numbers. In Geometric Algebra, imaginary numbers are real, that is, because of the rules of the mathematics, some values square to -1. http://web.mit.edu/tfhavel/www/IAP-02/lect4.pdf

As I see it, science is not yet advanced enough to discover the real reason behind the discrepancy between the mathematics and the observations. I have no doubt that some day, it will happen. We have been studying it almost 100-years and we still do not understand it. Someday, we will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silvernine and yRaz

Bubbajim

Posts: 720   +694
The thing is is that the mathematics disagrees with the observations unless we insert some chocolate fudge matter into the universe, however, no one knows just what that chocolate fudge matter is.
Mmm... existentially fascinating fudge. *drool*
 

dangh

Posts: 194   +240
We'll never know. Some things in life are just never meant to be discovered. We're nothing in this universe.
I bet long time ago someone said the same thing looking at lightning bolt, black death victims, sun and so on. Thankfully they were proven wrong and now we know lightning is not Gods punishment, bacteries and viruses exists, and sun is just a ball of gases.
We might not get all answers in our lifespan, but we got recently confirmation on bozons which were only math model, gravity waves, and many more. Dark matter will be solved as well
 

Bubbajim

Posts: 720   +694
Hang on, first you said:

The theory of dark matter/energy most certainly IS a mathematical artifact. It is a theory only and not supported by observational evidence.
Then your very next comment said:

No. Actually, gravity is the reason the search for dark matter/energy exists. The universe is behaving as though it has much more mass than we can account for observationally.
So there's nothing 'observational' except the observations that started this hunt?

There seems to be a general assumption in a few posts in this thread that science is about proving oneself right, when the vast majority of it is actually about proving things wrong. The hunt for dark matter and what it is, is exciting precisely because it's an unknown. People are trying to come up with novel ideas then test them. It's a good thing when an idea is wrong, it means we're one less bad idea away from the truth.


Dark matter is imho an astrophysical con job. It's the 'ether' of the 21st century. The outside bits of galaxies revolve faster than we expect, so there must be a 'pool' of matter we can't see.

People propose it must be some kind of special, hard to detect esoteric matter with interesting properties that we can't see for some reason, but there's no particular need to suppose it's anything other than boring, plain old ordinary every-day matter that we can't see for some reason.
This too is quite bizarre. The last seven words of your post rather undermine everything previous to them. If it's matter that we can't see for some reason that's the "hard to detect" part, and I'd wager it's a pretty "interesting propert[y]". The amount of matter required to have anything like the gravitational effect ascribed to dark matter would most certainly be visible, or its effects would be.

People are getting a bit flummoxed by the 'dark matter' label, even though currently that's a placeholder term. Us not knowing what constitutes 'dark matter' is a good thing, it's exciting!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silvernine

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,714   +1,817
No. Actually, gravity is the reason the search for dark matter/energy exists. The universe is behaving as though it has much more mass than we can account for observationally. However, the search for "dark stuff" to explain that behavior ignores the rest of the equation related to that mystery, IE the continuing expansion and acceleration thereof the universe. Scientists are using General and Special relativity to look for the "dark stuff". They're only looking at one aspect of a bigger mystery expecting to find an answer that doesn't and can't exist because they're failing to see the bigger picture.
You're conflating a lot different things here with sciencey-sounding words which are not explaining anything and in fact are science-free. Which is fine, that's an opinion, but is one that does not reflect any science that is currently being done. I suggest doing a lot more background reading of astrophysics literature and avoid the non-scientific postmodernism.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are different placeholders to explain different *observations* in the universe. Their basis is in simple observations which people then attempt to explain using current theories and math.

Dark Matter is observed through its gravitational effects on galaxies and is mostly concentrated on a galaxy or galaxy cluster scale. It has been known since the 1930s but nobody has yet discovered the particle or any other physical basis for it. There are a lot of diverse experiments testing a lot of different hypotheses currently ongoing.

Dark Energy is more of a straight placeholder which comes from observations in the late 1990s that the universe is not expanding at a constant rate, but instead at an accelerated rate. This means that the gravity of the universe as a whole is not enough to slow down and stop the expansion of the universe as a whole, and there is some force which continues to push everything farther apart as a faster speed. That force is called Dark Energy but there is little know about it other than that. It's a simple placeholder until someone can come up with decent experiments to test a hypothesis.

These aren't math problems, they are observed phenomena for which people come up with reasonable hypotheses to test and then do the tests to see if their hypothesis is supported.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silvernine

JaredTheDragon

Posts: 684   +441
So several days ago I posted the 15-years-old solution to "dark matter" including the relevant papers and it was "deleted for trolling."

That's the state of physical science around here - there is none, and it's not acceptable to SOLVE any problems. All of you should have read those quick papers (since it's an easy solution), but it looks like the Techspot folks don't want answers - just headlines. Solving physics problems doesn't generate revenue.

In case you WERE interested in the solution, research the mass of charge itself. That's the missing 95% mass in their muddled math. Charge.
 

JaredTheDragon

Posts: 684   +441
Oh I feel you... See the following;
https://www.techspot.com/community/topics/techspot-commenters.254626/#post-1753849

There's a lot more to it than that, but you're on the right track.
There's really not much more to it than that. The proton recycles 19 times its own mass per second in charge photons, and that 19 times isn't a coincidence. 19/20 is 95%. That's the missing mass in all the "dark matter" conundrums, outright. They simply failed to account for the mass of the photons involved. That's it. It's literally that simple, as Mathis showed us well over a decade ago.
 

neeyik

Posts: 1,687   +1,936
Staff member
Mathis? As in, Miles Mathis, the well regarded, qualified, peer-reviewed, data-proven scientist? The very same Miles Mathis who assures us all that the entire mathematical world is totally wrong and that the value of pi is 4 and not a transcendental irrational real number? The Miles Mathis that can categorically prove Goldbach's Conjecture - a feat that has been beyond the greatest minds in mathematics? The very same Miles Mathis who would have us all believe that Stephen Hawking died decades ago and was replaced by an imposter?

Oh I could be so way off the mark here, it'd be like me trying to hit Pluto by throwing a rock at it from Earth, but it kinda, maybe, just possibly, have something to do with the reason that (a) the collective field of astrophysicists, cosmologists, and theoretical physicists still believe the dark matter issue has yet to be resolved, and (b) your post detailing an alleged solution from a not well regarded, not even remotely qualified, absolutely not peer-reviewed, and without a hint of statistically valid, scientifically valid, mathematically correct evidence 'scientist' was deleted?

Maybe? Perhaps?
 

JaredTheDragon

Posts: 684   +441
Mathis? As in, Miles Mathis, the well regarded, qualified, peer-reviewed, data-proven scientist? The very same Miles Mathis who assures us all that the entire mathematical world is totally wrong and that the value of pi is 4 and not a transcendental irrational real number? The Miles Mathis that can categorically prove Goldbach's Conjecture - a feat that has been beyond the greatest minds in mathematics? The very same Miles Mathis who would have us all believe that Stephen Hawking died decades ago and was replaced by an imposter?

Oh I could be so way off the mark here, it'd be like me trying to hit Pluto by throwing a rock at it from Earth, but it kinda, maybe, just possibly, have something to do with the reason that (a) the collective field of astrophysicists, cosmologists, and theoretical physicists still believe the dark matter issue has yet to be resolved, and (b) your post detailing an alleged solution from a not well regarded, not even remotely qualified, absolutely not peer-reviewed, and without a hint of statistically valid, scientifically valid, mathematically correct evidence 'scientist' was deleted?


Maybe? Perhaps?
Or maybe you can't actually refute his work, his writing, his theory, or his solutions in any way except to say that they aren't the mainstream ones. Oh, no maybe there - since you didn't actually refute or argue any of the points, math, or details of any of his theories. Your retort was simply the Bandwagon Fallacy with a hearty side of Straw Man salad.

1. There is no "entire mathematical world." Where is it? Do you mean the bodies of work done by Newton, Laplace, Maxwell, Einstein, and those folks? Interesting that Mathis actually ADDS to their work and refines it to match current data in almost every paper, then. So which "entire mathematical world" are you referring to that Miles (never says) is totally wrong?

2. Since you obviously didn't read any of his papers on Pi=4, you couldn't know that his solution at 4 is for KINEMATIC mathematics only, and that Pi=3.14 still holds for any static mathematics, such as architecture or shapes. Pi=3.14 is Pi without the time variable that all motion requires. But you couldn't have known this since you never read the papers, so we can forgive your mistake there.

3. Thank you for posting his fix of Goldbach's Conjecture. But why didn't your post get deleted, when mine did? And it appears you also didn't read that paper even though you linked it - or else you'd know exactly how he fixed the issue, which is really quite simple once you read the paper. But again, we can forgive you since you didn't actually read the paper.

4. There is no "collective field", and no valid "peer review". Science isn't a democracy. A theory is right or wrong based on its own merit or falsification, and you haven't even attempted to falsify Miles' theories here - since you don't even know them, since you didn't bother reading them. And for "peer review" to matter, one must first have peers. Are you a peer of Miles'? When you still haven't even read his works or solved any of these standing problems, yourself? Are these other "collective field" people peers of his, since they can't even answer or solve any of these 300+ major math and physics problems sitting on the table? No, no, and no. That's just an Appeal to Authority, one which is false not just because it's a fallacy but also because these other folks are NOT authorities on the topic, despite their (and your) claim to be so. If they were authorities on the topics, why can't they solve them? The person who solves a scientific problem becomes the authority, not the people still foundering and struggling and getting it wrong.

Notice I haven't attacked you personally once here. I have only pointed out that you obviously haven't read any of his work, and your entire rebuttal was not a rebuttal at all, since it was a Swiss cheese of fallacies and incompetent polemics.
 

JaredTheDragon

Posts: 684   +441
Maybe? Perhaps?
Another "maybe" or "perhaps" question would be why didn't you actually post any relevant papers to the actual topic. You know, Dark Matter? It's even in the headline. Why aren't you attempting to refute his charge math, which shows exactly where the missing mass is, and what it is? Why post links to other topics as misdirection instead of addressing the question at hand?

Rhetorical questions only. The answer is that you simply cannot refute his math, or else you just would have done that.
 

neeyik

Posts: 1,687   +1,936
Staff member
As you say, this is a thread about a recently published theoretical model for dark matter, so it's not correct place to go off and attempt to work through Mathis' arguments. I could have, for example, pointed out that his paper on electric charge makes a statement on the "gravity of a photon" which is done in another paper, that also requires an explanation from another one, hoping through another, before terminating with a final requirement. That last one I did read, admittedly to no great depth due to its verbose nature, specifically this part (which is ultimate proof that the Newtonian gravitational force equation is actually an electromagnetic field equation):
...let us label that force in a new way, to differentiate it from Newton’s F. Let us use the letter H.
H = m(A + a)
Now, if we subtract that from Newton’s equation, we should find an electromagnetic field equation.
F = GMm/R2
E = F – H
E = [GMm/R2 ] – [m(A + a)]
E = (m/R2 )[GM – AR2aR2]
This simply isn't an electromagnetic field equation, not least because it contains no aspect of electromagnetism (such charge density or the electric constant) nor is it a vector field equation. This is also the keystone to Mathis' paper on dark matter, which is just not a concrete (I was going to say "not concrete enough", but the since his electromagnetic field equation is entirely dimensionless, I'll stick with just "concrete") foundation to give his dark matter paper any weight.

I did my first degree, in mathematical physics, over 30 years ago, so my knowledge is obviously going to be rusty, especially since I'm not a researcher in dark matter. The folks in the following link do seem to be, though:

https://arxiv.org/search/physics?qu...acts=show&order=-announced_date_first&size=50

A search of all fields for reference to Mathis' work, in the linked papers, yields no results (this, of course, does not preclude his work being used or referenced, just that the search engine found no reference). But let's suppose his work is valid and is correct - why would researchers continue to devote precise time and money on something that would be fully resolved, and had been for many years? It's possible these researchers are completely unaware of Mathis' work but given that his name is known even in the small college I lecture at, I'd find it surprising that all of them didn't know about him. Perhaps they've dismissed his ideas entirely out of hand; not too hard to imagine, given that he is insinuating that standard model physicists are insulting ones intelligence with their work.

I could have done all that, but as I had obviously not read any of his work, I clearly would not have the faculties to do so. Anyway, back to the topic at hand: dark matter candidates and other news:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/space_time/dark_matter/

Let's try this one:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190610142016.htm

Oh. Dang it. That's the same story. Here we go again!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Morris Minor

JaredTheDragon

Posts: 684   +441
As you say, this is a thread about a recently published theoretical model for dark matter, so it's not correct place to go off and attempt to work through Mathis' arguments. I could have, for example, pointed out that his paper on electric charge makes a statement on the "gravity of a photon" which is done in another paper, that also requires an explanation from another one, hoping through another, before terminating with a final requirement. That last one I did read, admittedly to no great depth due to its verbose nature, specifically this part (which is ultimate proof that the Newtonian gravitational force equation is actually an electromagnetic field equation):

This simply isn't an electromagnetic field equation, not least because it contains no aspect of electromagnetism (such charge density or the electric constant) nor is it a vector field equation. This is also the keystone to Mathis' paper on dark matter, which is just not a concrete (I was going to say "not concrete enough", but the since his electromagnetic field equation is entirely dimensionless, I'll stick with just "concrete") foundation to give his dark matter paper any weight.

I did my first degree, in mathematical physics, over 30 years ago, so my knowledge is obviously going to be rusty, especially since I'm not a researcher in dark matter. The folks in the following link do seem to be, though:

https://arxiv.org/search/physics?qu...acts=show&order=-announced_date_first&size=50

A search of all fields for reference to Mathis' work, in the linked papers, yields no results (this, of course, does not preclude his work being used or referenced, just that the search engine found no reference). But let's suppose his work is valid and is correct - why would researchers continue to devote precise time and money on something that would be fully resolved, and had been for many years? It's possible these researchers are completely unaware of Mathis' work but given that his name is known even in the small college I lecture at, I'd find it surprising that all of them didn't know about him. Perhaps they've dismissed his ideas entirely out of hand; not too hard to imagine, given that he is insinuating that standard model physicists are insulting ones intelligence with their work.

I could have done all that, but as I had obviously not read any of his work, I clearly would not have the faculties to do so. Anyway, back to the topic at hand: dark matter candidates and other news:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/space_time/dark_matter/

Let's try this one:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190610142016.htm

Oh. Dang it. That's the same story. Here we go again!
We can definitely forgive you for being 30 years behind. That was my point in the beginning, which is part of what was deleted by TPTB. Then you say you read this paper, but in fact you just scrolled down a few pages and cherry-picked an equation you didn't understand, or you simply suffer from malliteracy (in the best-case scenario). His equation is most certainly an E/M field equation - since he's showing the balance of charge vs. gravity in Newton's variable G. All you do is state that it is not and then say "charge density" and "electric constant", when this equation has nothing to do with either of those aspects of charge. You evidently also do not know what charge actually is - and thus, your vehemence I imagine, since Mathis is the one who showed us what charge is (mechanically and physically) to begin with. So here's the rest of that section, explaining exactly why and what he is doing that you somehow missed, including the paragraph directly after that equation:

F = ma + mA = m(A + a)

The first part, ma, keeps me from moving toward you. The second part, mA, pushes me away from you at the same rate you are approaching. Therefore, we stay in equilibrium.

That is the logical force for gravity, defined as it is. The force to keep gravity from working is the same as the force of gravity. To completely nullify a force, you apply an equal and opposite force. We have done that, and so we have found the size of gravity. But let us label that force in a new way, to differentiate it from Newton’s F. Let us use the letter H.

H = m(A + a)

Now, if we subtract that from Newton’s equation, we should find an electromagnetic field equation.

F = GMm/R2
E = F – H
E = [GMm/R2 ] – [m(A + a)]
E = (m/R2 )[GM – AR2aR2]

That is the E/M field equation that was buried in Newton’s equation. I could manipulate it into other forms, but I won’t bother with that right now. Notice that we don’t need the larger mass to calculate a gravitational force, but we do need it to calculate an electromagnetic force. This is logical since we assume that both masses are creating a real bombarding field with subparticles, in order to mechanically express the E/M repulsion. We do not assume this with the gravitational field, since we are expressing the gravitational field with motion only.
Of course it's a vector field equation. That's what the variables mean. It's not a difficult equation either, so even though your education is 30 years old I feel like you should have been able to read this simple math and figure out what he's doing. It is rather amusing that you did not.

It's even more amusing that you don't know what charge is and here you are attempting to call out an equation about charge. Please at least tell us you know what electricity and magnetism are? Give us some sign you know what you're talking about at all? I really want to believe in you!

From the same paper:
Does this equation get the right number? Let's apply it to the Moon, as affected by the Earth. Using the values of A and a that I derive below, it gives us a total force of -9.17 x 1023N. If we divide that by the mass of the Moon, we get
AE = -12.477 m/s2
That offsets the total acceleration A + a, leaving a difference of .00272m/s2, which is the current acceleration due to the compound field at the distance of the Moon. But if we divide by the combined mass of the Earth and Moon, instead we obtain,
AE = -.151m/s2

We divide by the combined mass because the E/M field has to repel both bodies. To counteract both accelerations, it has to work in both directions. So we have just found a number for the total acceleration of the E/M field of the Moon and Earth. I will show below that this is in fact the correct number.
And he does, in fact, show below that his equation yields the correct number given known data on the Moon. So tell us how his equation with its great simplicity gives us the proper numbers matching data (that nobody else has ever done so elegantly) and then show us how he's wrong - given that his field equation matches actual, measured data.

Are we to believe the Moon isn't actually orbiting the Earth, next? That's what you're effectively proposing.
 
Last edited:

JaredTheDragon

Posts: 684   +441
@JaredTheDragon
While that work is interesting and indeed seemingly compelling, it has a few unanswered(and perhaps unanswerable) questions.

The core problem with all of these theory's is that they depend on General and Special Relativity, which itself does not explain many aspects of the observed behavior of the universe. Relativity predicts that the universe should not be expanding and not accelerating, two things it is going. There are other problems that exist as well. So either Relativity is partial wrong, or the universe is misbehaving. Which seems more likely? Before we can have a hope of answering the mysteries that perplex us still, we need to fix(or replace) the Theory of Relativity.
I completely agree, and so does Mr. Mathis. He's written some 30+ papers on this very topic, critiquing and correcting Relativity in a multitude of ways. While Einstein was certainly on the right path and had some very solid theory, he also made mistakes (we all do) and his Relativity had no theoretical impetus to motion. Look at Section 2 of Miles' science homepage for a list of his topics and papers on Relativity, expanding and fixing many problems with the theory while keeping the core concepts intact.