return to homepage Abstract: I show that MOND is a hint in the right direction, despite being only an added function. I show that my unified field fills in all the holes of MOND. Then I show the gigantic fudge in the math of the dark matter hypothesis. Adding mass cannot solve galactic rotation, except by magically redefining Newton's variables. Then I show the unified field equation for velocity that solves the entire problem, in one line of math. Finally, I show why "normal" matter is only 5% of the total, deriving the 19 to 1 ratio by simple math, directly from current equations.
But first, let us look at the dark matter hypothesis for a moment. Initially, it was said that around 50% of the matter of a galaxy must be in a galactic halo, completely outside the visible galaxy. This number is now about 95%. Yes, a big problem required a big solution, and this tells us how large the velocity variance from prediction really was. I should think the theory has long since gone past the point of absurdity, just based on that percentage, but I will look more closely at it anyway. If you visit a place like Wikipedia, you find dark matter proposed as the solution to velocity variance, but you get no math or theory. How does dark matter in the halo, even at 95%, cause a flat velocity? If the answer were clear, you would think Wikipedia would take the time to gloss it. It shouldn't take long, should it? This is a big clue. Wiki usually likes to cloak the theories with math, but here we get nothing. That must mean the math is really pathetic.
With this under out belts, we can return to the MOND equation for velocity. So let me now correct all this bad math and theory. As a first question, we may ask how dense the matter field, and therefore the charge field, would have to be in order to begin causing photon drag. Well, we know that the charge field is dense enough in the solar system to cause axial tilts and variations from Bode's law and perturbations and torques and magnetospheres and so on, so the charge field here is already dense enough to cause drag. All charge field phenomena could be called drags of one sort or another, and if the charge field can cause perturbations it can cause velocity variances. It is not lack of a charge field in the solar system that causes the planets' velocities to follow the inverse of the radius, it is something else entirely, as I show below. Therefore, a matter density such as we find in the vicinity of Neptune is more than enough to create the required photon density. If it were not, then the axis of Neptune could not be turned by the charge field.
This second mass is defined as the mass at radius r, rather than the mass inside radius r. This solves the problem of previous maths, which did not include both variables. This second term represents the density of the charge field at a given radius and allows us subtract it out as a sort of drag. Because the mass at that radius is multiplied by G, it becomes the emitted charge field instead of the matter field. In the first term, G scales between two fields, both fields being represented in the term. But in the second term, G is simply taking the matter field and turning it into the charge field. In this way, the second term is able to represent the drag of that field. Many would have tried to solve by creating a drag equation, but this is a much simpler method of solving, as you can see. Once we study the equation, it becomes clear why it gives us different slopes for the galaxy and for the solar system. This equation is actually the correct one for all systems, but in the solar system we approximate by ignoring the second term. If you insert some numbers, you find that the reason it doesn't create a flat line in the solar system is that the mass inside r is always about the same. With only small variations, the mass inside r is just the mass of the Sun. So M _{0} doesn't change with different values of r, and this makes v change with r inversely. But in the galaxy, M_{0} changes greatly with different values of r. All the mass inside r counts as the core, so it increases substantially as r increases. And as the first term gets larger, the second does too, which means the differential tends to remain nearly constant due to the density distribution of spiral galaxies.
Some will say that this new equation can't be right, since it gives us too large a variance in the second term for planets in the solar system. And if we apply the equation to the orbit of the Moon about the Earth, the variance becomes even larger. Am I really offering this equation as a general equation? Yes, I am, since these problems are easy to solve. First of all, the variance isn't that great, due to the square root, even with the Moon. And we also have other factors we are ignoring. Remember, in the solar system and Moon system, we have a charge field inside a greater charge field. In the case of the Moon, for instance, the equation would be existing inside the much greater equation of the Sun's field. The Sun's charge field is much greater than that of the Earth, so it tends to tamp down the charge variations between the Earth and Moon. This also applies to the solar system, since the solar system is not only in its own charge field, it is in the greater charge field of the galaxy. Nonetheless, this new equation will help us fine tune all the velocities in all orbits. It will also force us to recognize the field presence of the photon, not only as charge but as resistance. This is the correct equation, and always has been. Historical and current equations are only attempts to derive this full unified field equation.Yes, this is my relativistic unified field equation, in its velocity form. In an earlier paper, I developed the relativistic unified field equation, as a force, by a completely different method. Here, I developed the velocity equation from first postulates again, not using my UFT force equation. Fortunately, the two equations match, confirming both papers and both equations. You may study an even more recent paper to show how the two equations resolve. Other critics will point out that we have done experiments showing that photons coming to us from long distances are not affected by any ether, field, or "foaminess" of space. NASA recently published a video showing just this, in a long anticipated experiment. Shouldn't this disprove my equation and my theory? No, since the photon field is not affecting photons in this paper. The photon field is affecting matter here. I am proposing that photons have drag on matter, not that they have drag on other photons. I have never proposed that the charge field affects the linear speed of photons, or that it would affect small wavelengths more than large wavelengths. I have shown that it would change wavelengths, but not that it would change some more than others. Therefore, the NASA experiment and other experiments have nothing to say here. From all this, we see that the problem has been that contemporary physicists do not understand Newton's gravity field. They don't even comprehend the variable assignments, and nothing is more basic. I have shown that this applies to both sides of this argument. It also applies to the non-symmetric gravitational theory of John Moffat, since Moffat just tries to hide behind tensors, and the conformal gravity of Philip Mannheim, who hides behind Riemannian curves. We do not need curved math or tensors to solve this. We just need to understand the variables and constants in Newton's equation. Conclusion: we do not have to propose any modification to Newton or Einstein to solve the galactic rotation problem. Nor do we need dark matter. We simply have to recognize the charge field, which already resides inside Newton's equation. Once we do this, the problem evaporates. Addendum: I am told that the bullet cluster killed MOND and proved dark matter, but I have now published a refutation of the Clowe et. al. papers from 2004 and 2006 that all refer to when saying this. In it, I show that once again bad math, poor logic, and unproved assumptions are standing in for real physics. Postscript, September 2011: my editor Joe Hyde just sent me this link from University of California Santa Cruz and the Institute for Theoretical Physics Zurich, where they are claiming to have finally modelled a spiral galaxy. This was considered impossible before now, since using the current gravitational theory they couldn't get enough mass into the arms. They solved it by using three supercomputers, including NASA's Pleiades computer, on which alone they logged 1.4 million processor hours! This was just part of over nine months of "number crunching". This is supposed to impress the reader, but I remind you of a little thing called Occam's razor, which they like to trot out whenever it suits them (and hide whenever it suits them). Look above, where I solved the same problem in one day, in my head. It doesn't require "number crunching", as you see, or any number of supercomputers. It requires a minor correction to the old faulty equations. Not a push, but an actual correction. The difference between a push and correction is that the push has no theory attached, only reams of computer paper. My correction above includes all the mechanics, as usual, since I show you the physical cause of each mathematical step. They didn't need a lot more fancy math or computer time, they needed to recognize that the charge field existed inside their gravity equations. As I have shown, their own equations—which go back centuries—were already telling them this. Postscript 2, October, 2011: Those who have proposed charge or electromagnetic solutions to cosmological problems have been shouted down for almost a century, assured by the mainstream that E/M plays no part in the math of celestial mechanics. Unfortunately, data from their own colleagues has long conflicted with this assurance, and it is conflicting louder and more often with each passing year. As just one example, I send you to this new paper [ArXiv** and AjP] by researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory, who have obtained “for the first time, a direct determination of a galactic-scale electric current (~ 3 × 10 ^{18} A) , and its direction ? positive away from the AGN. Our analysis strongly supports a model where the jet energy flow is mainly electromagnetic.” *http://www.phy.duke.edu/courses/055/syllabus/lecture24.pdf, p.4 **http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1106/1106.1397v2.pdf If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many |