Space time has mass? Spacetime and dark matter, one in the same?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Dark energy is analogous to gravity in that, as gravity is a property of matter, dark energy is a property of space.

Like that? Do I have to do the math next?

originally posted by: Skid Mark
I'll give you a cookie if you do. It can be any kind you want.

More like a Nobel Prize for doing the math showing how dark energy is a property of space, instead of just a cookie. I saw a mathematician give five different answers (assuming dark energy is vacuum energy which is a common though not proven assumption), but the only one he thinks is right is the measured value, not the calculated values. Nobody seems to know how to do the math to calculate the observed value, it's an unsolved problem.

What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum?

Dark matter is the E8-singlet state of E8xE8' heterotic superstrings. It is called "shadow matter" because it is invisible in every sense of the word (e.g., not only to optical vision). Astronomers commit a serious category error in recognising the need for a distinct kind of matter that is equally as fundamental as ordinary matter but then filling a waste basket of possible forms of dark matter with varieties of ordinary matter known to them that happen not to emit electromagnetic fields of any frequency! Dark energy is the energy of all the force fields acting only on shadow matter. Gravity is the only interaction between ordinary and shadow matter that can cross the gap extending along the 10th dimension of space required by supergravity theories and separint the two space-time sheets to which these two fundamental kinds of matter are confined. The width of this gap sets the size of the gravitational constant G. The gravitational force between ordinary and shadow/dark matter is repulsive, not attractive, so that that all the invisible shadow matter in the expanding universe repels all the visible, ordinary matter, causing this expansion to accelerate. It is, however, much weaker than the attractive force between shadow matter and itself, which is the same in strength as that between ordinary matter and itself. It is the attractive force between the hidden shadow matter in galaxies that stops the latter from breaking apart due to their rotation. Shadow matter has negative mass. The polarity of gravitational mass/charge exhibited by ordinary and shadow matter is analogous to that which exists for electric and magnetic charges.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei

sigh can you stop trolling threads with your "Read my signature"

Your signature has been debunked more times than moon-landing conspiracies, it holds no information relevant as evidence for anything more than thermal expansion...

you are assuming thermal expansion, which is wrong. dont derive satisfaction from your wrong assumptions. so nothing has been debunked. sigh

a reply to: DeadCat

I think where you're getting confused is, mass doesn't "cause" gravity, but rather the action of gravity is a function of mass.

Another way to look at this is, gravity exists in the absence of mass. It doesn't act on anything, but it exists.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: intrptr

Time isnt affected by gravity, matter is. Even light. They say Photons are massless but they do exert 'pressure'.


I have one of these, I found it in the garbage...

image

A Crookes radiometer spins because of differential heating and gas molecules still in the bulb. If it's a hard vacuum, no spin.

Okay, I'll buy that. Meaning... photons have no mass? If thats your pov, why do we get these images of light 'lensing' around distant objects? Einstein also bore that out when they measured stars changing positions during eclipses. So do photons have mass or not?

image compilation

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

That's a better clarification.. the gravity exists, but without mass there is no force to measure?

a reply to: Phage
Just explain me this. "Dark" energy / matter is called "Dark" because we can't 'see' it, right? Just its effect.

What about this, could they be under estimating the mass of galactic black holes, stellar black holes and suns, and all the dust between Galaxies, and sub atomic particles?

I'd say way off. The missing matter is there, just invisible to our 'eyes'.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Another way to look at this is, gravity exists in the absence of mass. It doesn't act on anything, but it exists.

Where'd you come up with that?

Thats like saying light still exists without a source, like stars.

a reply to: pfishy

Yeah sorry it was very late for me and I have been awake for 18 hour's, so my typing was very sloppy (it most usually is - you know sausage sized fingers and normal sized keyboard plus I am not the most eloquent of authors in any one's context) so I missed out the spaces, added them later in an edit but it was one single giant paragraph at first and the joke is on me as it was a Super String - of characters and bad gramma.

a reply to: intrptr

Gravity is a property, a law, of physics. It doesn't require anything else to "exist". When mass is present gravity exerts forces on the mass, but the law of gravity exists irrespective of whether the is mass present or not.

Again, mass does not "create" gravity, but is effected by gravity.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: intrptr

Gravity is a property, a law, of physics. It doesn't require anything else to "exist". When mass is present gravity exerts forces on the mass, but the law of gravity exists irrespective of whether the is mass present or not.

Again, mass does not "create" gravity, but is effected by gravity.

But that doesn't make sense. if gravity existed by itself it would just lump it self all together, wouldn't it? You are supposing gravity has mass already... that implies its made of particles, like (hacks) "Gravitons"?

I think gravity is more like a field like electromagnetic fields, generated by the host body, interacting with other 'host' fields.

a reply to: intrptr

Negative. If gravity could be compared to an electric field Einstein would have been able to prove the grand Unified Force Theory. He went to his grave trying to prove this, but was never successful.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: intrptr

Negative. If gravity could be compared to an electric field Einstein would have been able to prove the grand Unified Force Theory. He went to his grave trying to prove this, but was never successful.

To be true we have yet to define gravity, maybe when they do, they discover the be all theory. And warp drive or whatever.

The do move without inertia, I've seen it.

I'm am looking at EFE (field equatuons), if anyone cares to throw some clarification in on that, thatd be lovly. I may not be smart, bUT I will understand.

In this field it's ignorant to ignore the forefathers work.

originally posted by: intrptr
Okay, I'll buy that. Meaning... photons have no mass? If thats your pov, why do we get these images of light 'lensing' around distant objects? Einstein also bore that out when they measured stars changing positions during eclipses. So do photons have mass or not?

Light doesn't need mass to be gravitationally lensed. It's a common misconception that mass needs to be involved in gravity, but that's not really necessary. The reasons we normally ignore the gravitational attraction between photons is that it's too small to measure, but the gravitational attraction of a star like the sun is another matter and it can bend the path of a photon, or if you want to look at geodesics instead you can say the photon travels in a straight line through the curved space-time geodesic.

This video explains the misconception about mass being needed for gravity:

Common Physics Misconceptions

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Photons have mass. the video itself and you both said it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Arbitrageur, the only issue I have with this video is, in order for intrptr to understand the concept he will need to understand the discrete differences between inertia and momentum (as momentum is used in the video equation to differentiate itself from gravitational force based on mass).

The video is actually speaking to a much more complex subject ultimately, and this is the curvature of space-time. (and I take a little bit of exception to them doing it using the 'curved' Earth as an example (which is more a function of geometry than physics)).

a reply to: intrptr

Yes, photons have mass, but the mass is so infinitesimally small it is negligible compared to other forces acting upon them, hence photon mass usually being discarded (unless the specific area of research is directed precisely at the effects of gravitation on mass of photons).

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Photons have mass. the video itself and you both said it.

What time index does it say that? (Hint: it doesn't say that because that photons have gravitational attraction in spite of being massless was the whole point of the video, at least the part about gravity). The video specifically says photons have no mass at 30 seconds and he even writes down m=0 next to the light bulb, which means photon mass is zero. And at no point after that does he say photons have mass so I don't know how you can miss the major point of the video by so much.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Yes, photons have mass, but the mass is so infinitesimally small it is negligible compared to other forces acting upon them, hence photon mass usually being discarded (unless the specific area of research is directed precisely at the effects of gravitation on mass of photons).

No, we think photons are massless. The standard model is based on the principle of gauge-invariance and photon mass would violate that principle, which doesn't by itself prove the photon has no mass but mass measurements of photons also suggest it's either zero or very close.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Arbitrageur, the only issue I have with this video is, in order for intrptr to understand the concept he will need to understand the discrete differences between inertia and momentum (as momentum is used in the video equation to differentiate itself from gravitational force based on mass).

The video is actually speaking to a much more complex subject ultimately, and this is the curvature of space-time. (and I take a little bit of exception to them doing it using the 'curved' Earth as an example (which is more a function of geometry than physics)).

If you think the photon has mass, I think you missed the point of the video which is that it doesn't.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: intrptr

Time isnt affected by gravity, matter is. Even light. They say Photons are massless but they do exert 'pressure'.


I have one of these, I found it in the garbage...

image

A Crookes radiometer spins because of differential heating and gas molecules still in the bulb. If it's a hard vacuum, no spin.

Okay, I'll buy that. Meaning... photons have no mass? If thats your pov, why do we get these images of light 'lensing' around distant objects? Einstein also bore that out when they measured stars changing positions during eclipses. So do photons have mass or not?

image compilation

Photons do have relativistic mass, expressed as momentum. They have zero rest mass.

Gravity can bend the path of photons not because the gravity pulls on the photon but because the space through which they travel (in straight lines) is itself, bent.