Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Nov 9, 5:08*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
dlzc wrote:
On Nov 6, 3:26 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Well, this article isn't talking about "Dark Fluid" but
"Dark Fields". *Different theories, though I don't know
what the explanation of Dark Fields are supposed to be
yet. *The only explanation is that it is an extension of
MOND to account for cluster deficiencies.

It doesn't fix microlensing, so it is a patch to a flawed
model.

I thought that's why they created it?

MOND covers rotation curves. Dark Fields fixes cluster movements.
Neither touches microlensing.

But getting back to Dark Fluid, why do you say it
violates what we see? *Dark Fluid is supposed to be
a complete alternative to MOND, Dark Matter
and Dark Energy, so the fact that it "decays" into
something similar to Dark Matter is exactly what it
was supposed to do at some particular scale.

Then it is Dark Matter, and no solution.

Dark Energy is a repulsive force, Dark Matter an
attractive force, both acting on the same medium
albeit at different scales.

Either that, or Dark Energy is an attractive force at
"short" scale, to provide the local anomalies
(non-expansion) from global expansion due to the
cosmological constant.

I think that's the entire point of Dark Fluid, it's the
same energy acting as an attractive force at shorter
scales, but as a repulsive force at greater distances.

Such is not required in GR, however (which does microlensing). What
is required is an anomalous amount of mass in medium scales, and an
anomalous amount of attraction at slightly larger scales, and the
expansion happens on its own. Because gravity is no sort of force.

Also it's been noted before that the acceleration
constant in MOND is directly linked to the Dark
Energy effect range. Though they don't know
quite why that would be.

Yes, that makes no sense at all.

....
Those would indicate fluidic behaviour.

Behavior that is disallowed by observation.

What observation is that?

No viscosity, no pressure.

Dark Matter was present at the time the
CMBR quenched, and Dark Energy was too I
believe. *So it has nothing to do with "being cold",
as distinct from "cooling". *But since cooling is
an effect of expansion... the cart is trying to pull
itself.

Maybe that's when gravity started breaking?

.... whatever gravity is...

David A. Smith

On Nov 9, 8:21*pm, dlzc wrote:

... whatever gravity is...


The interaction between matter and S-T geometry,
as explained by General Relativity.

No charge,
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Yousuf Khan wrote:
[...]

Also it's been noted before that the acceleration constant in MOND is
directly linked to the Dark Energy effect range. Though they don't know
quite why that would be.

Numerology is not science.

[...]

Dear Knecht:

On Nov 9, 7:10*pm, Knecht wrote:
On Nov 9, 8:21*pm, dlzc wrote:

... whatever gravity is...

The interaction between matter and S-T geometry,
as explained by General Relativity.

No charge,

I should hope not. That is a reference to a model, a description of
how gravityt behaves at scales larger than atoms but not too much
larger than solar systems.

I suppose you'd charge for the answer to "what is gravity at the
quantum level"?

David A. Smith

dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Nov 9, 5:08 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
dlzc wrote:
On Nov 6, 3:26 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Well, this article isn't talking about "Dark Fluid" but
"Dark Fields". Different theories, though I don't know
what the explanation of Dark Fields are supposed to be
yet. The only explanation is that it is an extension of
MOND to account for cluster deficiencies.
It doesn't fix microlensing, so it is a patch to a flawed
model.
I thought that's why they created it?

MOND covers rotation curves. Dark Fields fixes cluster movements.
Neither touches microlensing.

Okay.

I think that's the entire point of Dark Fluid, it's the
same energy acting as an attractive force at shorter
scales, but as a repulsive force at greater distances.

Such is not required in GR, however (which does microlensing). What
is required is an anomalous amount of mass in medium scales, and an
anomalous amount of attraction at slightly larger scales, and the
expansion happens on its own. Because gravity is no sort of force.

Why would having more mass and more attraction at certain scales create
a repulsion at even larger scales? What in GR suggests such a thing?

Also it's been noted before that the acceleration
constant in MOND is directly linked to the Dark
Energy effect range. Though they don't know
quite why that would be.

Yes, that makes no sense at all.

Maybe because there is an underlying common mechanism which we have not
uncovered yet?

Those would indicate fluidic behaviour.
Behavior that is disallowed by observation.
What observation is that?

No viscosity, no pressure.

A superfluid has no viscosity either. And pressure is a relative thing.

Dark Matter was present at the time the
CMBR quenched, and Dark Energy was too I
believe. So it has nothing to do with "being cold",
as distinct from "cooling". But since cooling is
an effect of expansion... the cart is trying to pull
itself.
Maybe that's when gravity started breaking?

... whatever gravity is...


Perhaps gravity is the force of attraction between space-time particles?

Yousuf Khan

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Nov 14, 11:57*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
dlzc wrote:
On Nov 9, 5:08 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
dlzc wrote:
....
I think that's the entire point of Dark Fluid, it's the
same energy acting as an attractive force at shorter
scales, but as a repulsive force at greater distances.

Such is not required in GR, however (which does
microlensing).

Correction: GR + Dark Matter does microlensing.

*What is required is an anomalous amount of mass in
medium scales, and an anomalous amount of
attraction at slightly larger scales, and the
expansion happens on its own. *Because gravity is
no sort of force.

Why would having more mass and more attraction at
certain scales create a repulsion at even larger scales?

GR alone produces expansion, *without* the cosmological constant. The
cosmological constant was added to neutralize the effect inherent in
the model to describe a static Universe, then subsequent observation
modified that constant to some intermediate (???) value.

What in GR suggests such a thing?

Gravity is not a force. Expansion and relaxation are a natural result
of the second law of thermodynamics.

Also it's been noted before that the acceleration
constant in MOND is directly linked to the Dark
Energy effect range. Though they don't know
quite why that would be.

Yes, that makes no sense at all.

Maybe because there is an underlying common
mechanism which we have not uncovered yet?

We are surrounded by the *now*. The relationship is between the now
and the then. The mechanism is here...

Those would indicate fluidic behaviour.

Behavior that is disallowed by observation.

What observation is that?

No viscosity, no pressure.

A superfluid has no viscosity either. And pressure
is a relative thing.

If it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, Dark Fluid = Dark
Matter

Dark Matter was present at the time the
CMBR quenched, and Dark Energy was too I
believe. *So it has nothing to do with "being cold",
as distinct from "cooling". *But since cooling is
an effect of expansion... the cart is trying to pull
itself.

Maybe that's when gravity started breaking?

... whatever gravity is...

Perhaps gravity is the force of attraction between
space-time particles?

Its not a force.

David A. Smith