Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_terminator_challenge.thumb.jpg.b7f10f594317507d0f40662231b0d9a8.jpg

Recommended Posts

I would like to open a discussion on the speed of light and more to the point, dark matter. 

As we all know, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, because we dont/can't. And dark matter can't/ hasn't been detected, yet. 

So my question is, is it possible that dark energy does travel faster than the speed of light? And because it does tavel faster than the speed of light, it cannot go slower, just like we cannot go faster, so will remain undetected. 

What's your thoughts? Has this ever been hypothesised? Is it plausible? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, definition of dark matter is that it is ordinary matter with very little or no interaction with EM field.

So it does not shine light when hot nor reflect light when shone upon. But it is "slow" kind of matter, at least in cosmology, and it contributes to energy density of universe in the same way regular matter does, meaning kinetic energy mv^2 / 2 being orders of magnitude smaller than mc^2 (v<<c). It does not contribute to total energy density in the way radiation does (e=hc/lambda).

It also has to have mass - because one way we are detecting it is via gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find difficult to get my head around the fact that electromagnetic radiation has a quantifiable propogation constant at all. James Clerk Maxwell was able to determine it from mathematical theory alone, which is pretty awesome. But WHY did the universe settle on one particular speed and not another. Instantaneous transference of information must have been forbidden at the Big Bang, and out fell "C". Sorry, slightly off thread on this one. I reckon there's a major paradigm shift awaiting us further up the road. Check out the "Great Debate" of the 1920”s.  Ah, could waffle on for hours on this one 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to offer my own explanation for dark matter and dark energy that also explains the behavior of Oumuamua.  I paste an abstract here along with a link to my article on this.  I am also attaching a pdf of the article

ABSTRACT

Galactic rotation rates, the distribution of matter in the early universe shown by the scale of anisotropies in the CMB, and cosmological expansion present problems that current theory attempts to resolve by positing dark matter and dark energy. This paper posits that gravitational force is a dampened wave function dependent upon mass and distance. Therefore gravity reverses at regular dampened intervals. This reversal would also be in effect at smaller scales such as our own solar system, implying that current theory may have overlooked evidence of this in the data from various probes that have been launched.

LINK:  https://redd.it/ao8vfo

Bakhos Gravity_as_a_wave_function.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Joe_Bakhos said:

I would like to offer my own explanation for dark matter and dark energy that also explains the behavior of Oumuamua.  I paste an abstract here along with a link to my article on this.  I am also attaching a pdf of the article

ABSTRACT

Galactic rotation rates, the distribution of matter in the early universe shown by the scale of anisotropies in the CMB, and cosmological expansion present problems that current theory attempts to resolve by positing dark matter and dark energy. This paper posits that gravitational force is a dampened wave function dependent upon mass and distance. Therefore gravity reverses at regular dampened intervals. This reversal would also be in effect at smaller scales such as our own solar system, implying that current theory may have overlooked evidence of this in the data from various probes that have been launched.

LINK:  https://redd.it/ao8vfo

Bakhos Gravity_as_a_wave_function.pdf

I just had a brief look at your pdf, but I am afraid it does not make sense. The acceleration given by equation 1 and shown in figure 1 are offered without any particular justification, and they would not have the effect you suggest. Planets would not be stable at the intersection points of your curve and the standard model, unless they were in exactly circular orbits (which they are not). Any infinitesimal deviation from circular would cause the orbits to lose stability instantly. Comets or asteroids in highly eccentric orbits  would show huge deviations from the orbits predicted by using the standard gravitational models. These huge deviations are not observed. If you change a force field from the standard models, you really need to run simulations to see whether the resulting orbits behave in ways consistent with observations.

Furthermore, what you describe is not a wave equation, it is just a force field incorporating a sinusoidal term without any particular reason. Wave equations are typically partial differential equations which lead to the emergence of waves, generally without some sinusoidal term (unless we are talking a driven oscillation).

Finally, I object to the use of the term "preprint" in the article header. It might be typeset in the MNRAS LaTeX style, and may have been submitted, but it would only qualify as a preprint  once accepted for publication.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.