Can Gravitomagnetism Explain Dark Matter?

This seems to be the only reasonable explanation I've heard so far....we seem to be dealing with forces well beyond our comprehension....

https://www.space.com/einstein-general-relativity-frame-dragging.html

https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xte/Greatest_Hits/frame.html

The very name "Dark Matter" smacks of hand waving. There is a lot to digest in this paper but mirroring formulas is a prime technique of physics which lends credence to its application. Now if we can dispense with huge numbers of dimensions, dispense with multiple universes, dispense with anthropomorphic application of expansion and contraction metaphors applied to the unique infinity, find evidence of mass/energy balance on a galactic level(nature repeating its conservative cycles), and return to WWgRD(what would a God really do, I know this sounds like I am religious;I am not) Einstein-esque thought exercises then science could once again look less like the embarrassing Bizarro comic book driven enterprise that it currently does. I really am weary of what I consider vacuous grammatical constructions being so pervasively used to synthesize the conventional wisdom of the day. Its as if political spin popularity had become the golden measuring stick as opposed to sober analysis of evidence. Thanks, Rixter(GA) for providing the link to this paper so apparently free of blatant and irrelevant mental subterfuge and so refreshingly free of metaphor strained beyond its plastic limit.

______________

thewildotter

Hi Rixter.

Unfortunately, as soon as you start explaining concepts in terms of fields you run into the problem of explaing field.

We know what are the effects on whatever is in the field, maybe; however we don't know what it is that is causing the effect in that volume where the "field" is. i.e. we don't e.g. know how a magnet produces a field near itself but we can certainly experience the effects. We also know how it is able to do this by examining the magnet. In other words, do we know what is happening in that, otherwise empty, space? I would suggest not, if you rely on the usual mainstream physicists

The same reasoning applies to electric fields and electrons.

Until you can bite the bullet and conceive of what is going on in the field at the sub-sub-sub atomic level, then explanations will just be so much magik.

The Beauty of Fields

duikerbok,

The inability of humans to digest fields is certainly a problem. It partly stems from our inappropriate educational background which inaccurately represents a space voxel as supporting no parameters until something (energy or mass) is present in the space. You have probably heard that the impedance of a vacuum is 377ohms. You can expect from this fact that there are free space parameters that exist with nothing(no energy, no mass) present in that little space cube(or perhaps dodecahedron). To get even more comfortable with empty space parameters you can do simulations with software that represents patches(chunks of space) in languages such as Logo. I once did a simulation of 2D soap bubbles in Logo and it did wonders for my acceptance of parameters applied to patches. To get maximum benefit from the exercise absolutely forbid global variables. For example, set 377ohms in every patch rather than setting it globally. A patch, with its sides and edges, might have parameters with net zero values if the value on opposing faces, for example, sum to zero. This might represent a transient quantity of energy passing through the patch as a "photon" might place electric and/or magnetic gradients on a patch as it passes through.

I am not saying that the casual observer can instantly become totally enlightened with respect to fields but it can give one a level of comfort accepting fields that you would not necessarily achieve without having experienced the exercise. This is a good thing since, in my opinion, much of the natural world is a distributed system with lots of "empty" patches. This emptiness does not mean that one cannot model actions which depend upon parametric gradients which can stealthily exist across the patches. Think of the classic "Life" simulation where screen pixels are patches within which color brightness parameters may exist statically or dynamically. A dark pixel might seem "empty" but it still can support a blink of light as some "life" soliton passes through. In my opinion, fields are more real than forces on objects and other representations more suited to those closed form solutions with which our educational system seems so obsessive.

I leave you with the thought that differentiation on a field is nothing more than parametric subtraction at every pair of patches. The subtraction is conceptually simpler and more profound and informative than a closed form differential solution of some human perceived trigonometric(or other) function at every object within scope. The subtraction really IS what nature is doing. And using subtraction on neighbors in fields to achieve the REAL differentiation of whatever oddball functions one imagines to be present in the space really IS the magic of nature.

____________

thewildotter

It's hard to play with a pair of magnets and not feel that there is something there between them pushing and pulling. Perhaps a field is just a mental picture, but it is a very useful one. Thank Michael Faraday.

The lack of a suitable mental picture is what makes Quantum Mechanics so weird and hard to understand.

http://chartasg.people.cofc.edu/chartas/Teaching_files/phys412_ch4.pdf

Good find, thanks. I've been looking for a good illustration like that.

Doesn't anybody else wonder why the "gravitomagnetism" of normal matter was NOT factored-in, to begin with, LONG BEFORE anyone had the chance to jump to the Dark Matter conclusion? Is this not a case of the proverbial Dark Matter Cart being placed before the Natural Universal Horse?

Two aspirin, please.

Helical orbits, not elliptical orbits, explains the questionable velocities of stars in galaxies. Planetary rings are helical orbits. Moons are in helical orbits. Planets are in helical orbits. A helical orbit does not have a pi relationship. And that's why you can not determine the true velocity and momentum of the orbits. That said, dark matter and dark energy is not the greatest hoax in science. The c of light is the greatest mis-understanding of science. Light, just like all other velocities is relative. Our science just doesn't know how to measure it. EM radiation has a special kind of relativity. And because of this, not only the relative velocity between the emitter and absorber can be measured, but the velocity of the emitter can be determined and the velocity of the absorber can also be determined. But not with our current clocks. All of our clocks are oscillatory. Our clocks change with acceleration. When we develop rotational clocks, they will be immune to acceleration. And time will be recognized as a universal singularity.

e and time are the ONLY physical constants. Not c. And of course, our science uses c.

Wow, I guess you're smarter than all the astrophysicists in the world. Congratulations! You should be able to invent that clock in no time.

You're going to need a large quantity of unobtanium for that...

Well I guess it depends where you're coming from in relation to the concept "fabric of space". This is just a fudge title for the cloud of energy that (partially) fills the void we call space. The (A)ether was the original term until it was mis-understood bt Michelson and Morley. They thought solid objects moved through the Aether, and "disproved" the existence of the Aether, thereby giving it a bad press, so Physicists are reluctant to go against accepted "wisdom" and get funding for paddling up blind creeks.

In my reality "solid" objects are denser parts of the Aether - the question is " do they push aside this fabric, or do they incorporate the fabric into the "solid" and eject it at the other side ?"

Space does not have impedance. People believe that the speed of light is limited. And it is, but not because of impedance. Or space It's limited by the source. It's limited by the acceleration of the emission. If the source acceleration was slower or faster, the propagation velocity would be slower or faster. The impedance of space is a math fiction. Space can not impede any motion. The only reason we don't detect anything faster than light, is because we can not find a faster acceleration source.(large red shifts could be large gravity of long ago) Mass will not stop us from reaching a particle velocity of c. The acceleration source will. The proper acceleration duty cycle, will allow particle c speeds without mass gain. But not faster than c, without a faster source.

Fields are hard to fathom. We might be able to paint the field around an electron. And possibly the charge itself. High frequency EM strobes could freeze the charge like a fan blade. X-ray and gamma VFOs needed. We might be able to DSP light with x-ray sampling in the future. Hard to believe now.

If you watch closely, some discernment of EM fields may be acquired with ferrofluids. Only low frequencies can be seen, because of the fluid inertia. But even at that you can see the twisting motion down the conductor. Can we assume the charge motion is twisting? Can we assume the current radial path is longer than the E axial path, because of that twist, a change, takes longer to get down the conductor. A coil can twist the current radially(wind it around) on the conductor during charge. And unwind it upon discharge. Play with this stuff outside, it's a mess.

Have you ever wondered why light has the same speed, whether you are approaching or retreating from it. Without the space-time local-time crap? It's because the emission is instant and intermittent. The emission has no duration. The source motion, has no time to be added or subtracted from the propagation speed. The propagation is a chunk, a length, a duration of field disturbance.

EM radiation is a discreet strobe with a duty cycle, not a wave with frequency. Detection/absorption gives us frequency from the intermittent strobe. An absorber is like a class B amp, feeding a tank circuit. Intermittent input excitation....sine wave out.

How would you like to know the velocity of a star, and our velocity, relative to that star? With all the stars you can see? Instant emission/duration absorption, gives us an asymmetric duty cycle that should allow for these measurements.

But I can find no interested parties. Simple light has everybody fooled. I love it.