A controversial new gravity hypothesis has passed its first test

I had heard a theory i like as an explanation for gravity. It supposes that a mass in a vacuum, thus displacing the vacuum(state) creates an attraction to the mass which is displacing the vacuum... scale this to a planetary level, then wala.. gravity is perceived. I feel that all things/matter have an displacement effect upon the space around it..ie gravity


ETA: In effect we are "floating" on the surface of the vacuum, but stuck to the surface of the planetary mass displacing the vacuum.



Yeah i just proposed were all walking upside down...no joke

a reply to: jappee

I think that is what he told me, or something very similar

a reply to: visitedbythem

originally posted by: visitedbythem
My Pop is an old genius research scientist. He will be 90 in a few days. I went to him long ago and questioned him about gravity. His answer surprised me. He discussed a couple theories, but He said we don't really know. Him not having an in depth answer really surprised me.
I will have to ask him his opinion on this one

The first link in the article has the research PDF link which he may get more out of.. My dad is 92 but his eyes have really gone bad and can no longer read ....which he loved to do... good luck. I keep thinking about all the shows where a big rubber sheet is stretched an a bowling ball, representing a sun is placed causing a depression in the so called fabric of space.. All this may lead to no where or it could be a very big deal... No dark matter considering they have not detected any dark matter particles may not be that big of a stretch.. I am just glad scientist are looking...

a reply to: 727Sky

I lean towards MOND myself, but not because of "Dark Matter." "Dark Energy" is a nonsense term used to make it look like astrophysicists know what they are talking about. It gets serious play in the journals but I don't know any physicists who are really happy with it.

It does make for a pretty good theory of gravity when there is nothing wrong with how we measure it, only with how we have been observing it.

It does paint an interesting picture with light travelling through space, similar to sounds travelling through the wind.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: 727Sky

That old saying "'Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang from a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy" springs to mind.

End of the day through without an understanding of what dark matter/energy actually comprises, 95% of the universe will remain unknown to us.

I think we only know 1% to be honest. we only look up, and get surprised by the clouds.

maybe 1% of that 1% actually do look beyond, but with 7 billion people, we know very little...

originally posted by: pikestaff
Somewhere, some mathematician is pulling his hair out, it does not exist, then it does, then it does not, then it does...

That's why we have mathematicians. Else we'd all go bald. Oo

originally posted by: jappee
a reply to: djz3ro

That was where i was heading. I don't believe dark matter has anything to do with politics..

Have you heard of the Clintons??

Very dark matter

a reply to: 727Sky

I agree that the experiments show that the new theoretical model does its job predicting gravitational lensing, but the theory does not fix anything about gravity.

Erik's idea is in trouble regardless of the "time scale of relaxation". If his thermalization process occurs before the neutron hits the screen, the interference pattern will be destroyed. If the thermalization is slower, the interference pattern will be predicted at an unshifted place - because gravity only arises from the thermalization in his picture - which will contradict the observations that the phases and interference patterns are exactly as shifted as the equivalence principle predicts. There's no way to escape the contradiction simply because Erik's mechanism for gravity (which is a force that we observe) - a mechanism linked to entropy - causes some inevitable side-effects such as the loss of coherence (which are certainly not observed).

Link to source

and

[Sciencetist] argue that experiments with ultracold neutrons in the gravitational field of Earth disprove recent speculations on the entropic origin of gravitation.

Link to the actual experiment write-up

It seems Entropic gravity works to predict what it was designed to predict, but it fails to show anything other parts of gravity working correctly.

Anyway, sorry such a good topic turned to such dribble after only a few post, and yes as a mathematician I did pull my hair out a little.

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: frenchfries
But hey Dark matter is cool ! So it must exist

It does exist, the real question is the origin of matter and what side of spacetime is leaking matter into the other.

Could it be that like modern theory states about gravity flowing across the dimensions and universes , it is driven by dark energy ?
But for now
Dark matter/Dark energy = a singularity = we dont know wat the hell it is
Peace

originally posted by: 727Sky
Verlinde's hypothesis of gravity was first proposed back in 2010 but they just got around to being able to make the first step to validate the theory. By studying 33,000 distant galaxies and using Verlinde's figures it was found that there was NO NEED FOR DARK MATTER to make what they were observing make sense.

Are you sure about that?

From what I see dark matter still provides a better fit to the data.

To quote the actual paper:

Furthermore, there are various challenges for EG, especially concerning observations of dynamical systems such as the Bullet Cluster (Randall et al. 2008) where the dominant mass component appears to be separate from the dominant baryonic component. There is also ongoing research to assess whether there exists an increasing mass-to-light ratio for galaxies of later type (Martinsson et al. 2013), which might challenge EG if confirmed. We conclude that, although this first result is quite remarkable, it is only a first step.

So they didn't look at the really interesting things, like the bullet cluster.

Aight, I'm just going to throw my 2 cents in here, and it's pretty much going to be the same 2 cents I always throw:

I have a minor background in physics (2 years uni, then dropped out), but a high interest in everything high-tech. I also asked many questions regarding dark matter and things related CERN. (Because our uni had a exchange program to study in Geneva for several months, where you'dd spend atleast several days/weeks at the CERN facility itself)

I would like to stress that Dark Matter is not proven fact. As the initial OP explains, dark matter was theorized after deep-space observations (From Hubble I believe) showed a different reality than our model predicted. This is the root of why things like Dark Matter and Energy exist, not because we've observed them.

The "dark" stands for that exact fact: it's unmeasurable. It doesn't leave a single trail in the electro-magnetic spectrum (whereas pretty much everything else does). This means that, by definition, dark matter does not emit/reflect light and does not emit/absorbe temperature or sound. For all intents and purposes, it does not exist in a measurable way. The only footprint dark matter leaves is the fact that galaxies seems to move away alot faster than we predicted.

That's why so many scientists, as do I, have problems with this theory. It's nonsense to start fantasizing about extremely exotic matter, when even the best scientists admit we don't fully understand gravity yet. (Mainly because we can't do experiments on the scale of planets; yet)

Most of you will be familiar with Occam's Razor.

If deep space observations show that what you predicted about gravity turns out to be wrong (by magnitudes), what's more likely:

- That extremely exotic matter exists which we can't measure, and never will, that's all around us, but doesn't impact anything except the motion of galaxies in deep space.

- That our predictions were wrong, and that our model of gravity needs work. (which is also backed by countless of other studies)

originally posted by: jappee
a reply to: imjack

Wasn't it anti Trump people who blatantly propose sh!t like this... to suppose that crap like this should mix with political positions???? yeah i mean you..

Do you have any sort of source for this claim? rofl.

I brought it up because I saw it on ATS. Can you even find me posting in said threads? You make it sound like I made the thread and am a fake news pusher like your troop.

It wasn't me that brought it up first either, curb your snowflake feelings over a typical response to a stupid comment.

The hypocrisy in these 'off topic' ad hominem posts never gets old. You added nothing yourself buddy, rofl.

Ps. I'm anti-Trump supporters. Trump is a good guy and I've even done business with him.

The inbred alt right republican piranhas don't represent Trump. It's okay if they think they do in their broken minds.

Note that the entire Dark Matter theory is just a fudge factor on a grand scale. It does fit data well because it has fudgeable terms within it. One only has to look at the historical calculated and measured speed of light to see how fudge factor terms work. There was about a 2 year delay in the calculated speed to match the measured speed.

All of this is done to predict events based on observations at hand and may have nothing to do with reality but is useful, just the same.

a reply to: savemebarry

Well they do say ignorance is a form of bliss.

Truth is Humanity in its present condition simply does not have the tools or even the ability to conceive the tools required to understand our universe, and to be honest we probobly never will.

Its just that big and we are just that small.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: frenchfries
But hey Dark matter is cool ! So it must exist

It does exist, the real question is the origin of matter and what side of spacetime is leaking matter into the other.

Could it be that like modern theory states about gravity flowing across the dimensions and universes , it is driven by dark energy ?
But for now
Dark matter/Dark energy = a singularity = we dont know wat the hell it is
Peace

The visual representation might help.



So at 7:00, you can basically see the 'gravity' effect from Dark Energy actually repels matter.

The reason 'we don't know what it is' is because it's on the other side of Space Time. Even if we could manage to peak ourselves ontop of a "Dark Energy Hill", the gravitational effects are coming from the other side. Not the side we are on.

It is however easy to assume, that it is a massive amount of matter on the other side creating the gravity.

Dark matter may be a real, but isn't it just the product of analytical imagination, used to fill in a gap in mathematics? I wonder if the mass of black holes and neutron stars, gravity lensing and time constriction and dilation, was applied to the equation of ultimate mass of our universe. I am not learned enough to know. Thus in my thought missing mass is not missing, it is just in-front of our eyes pretending to be something else, distance, being the culprit in gaining an accurate measurement. But Yes, we need working theories to continue our efforts of understanding. Such theories give us our day to day working environment and a platform from which to launch experiments for verification.
But new ideas have to be evaluated with the same degree of possibly as the ones we abide by today. It has been the bends in the road, twists in understanding where we have learned new understandings. If we set aside and idea, we may be ignoring the truth. If we take, listen, test, try and evaluate......giving new ideas room ...we may learn something........ .I love it when we wonder and dream. Thanks for bringing this topic up a reply to: 727Sky

originally posted by: pteridine
Note that the entire Dark Matter theory is just a fudge factor on a grand scale. It does fit data well because it has fudgeable terms within it.

Observation and theory don't match, hence the need for dark matter - it's designed to fill the gap!

originally posted by: tikbalang
a reply to: 727Sky

Can Bed or Arb explain Verlindes theory please?

Verlinde's theory is that gravity is an EMERGENT phenomena caused by entropy.

en.wikipedia.org...