Modified Gravity - Science topic

What, if we look at gravitation as a wave-based mechanism?

Since gravitational waves are nothing else than fast disturbations of the gravitational field, and they propagate with c, this is a strong indication that gravitation itself is a based on waves, on wave-energy which is transported backwards to its source oscillator, its source particle and thus its mass.

If this is actually the case, then also resonance will take place:

Assume a galaxy bulge with all its masses. There is a huge number of electrons part of it, each generating a gravitational energy-backflow related to its intrinsic oscillator frequency, which is related to the electron's wavelength.

Assume further, that this gravitational energy-backflow is the more redshifted the farther away it is located from the source. Thus, the related frequency of the far-away location's gravitational energy-backflow is less than that generated by the source electron.

Now, assume that the distance (about 1Mpc) generates a redshift of about 1/a=137, the inverse of the fine-structure constant. The frequency is then about 1/137 of the electron's intrinsic frequency. This frequency roughly matches the frequency of the electron, bound to a proton, so to speak, its circulation velocity around the proton, which is v=a*c (-> frequency of BOHR radius).

Due to resonance, this far-away electron, bound to its proton, reacts much stronger to the usually weak gravitational energy-backflow, than normal.

The effect is that the related particles, thus all atoms, masses, "feel" a much stronger gravitation at that distance ( about 1Mpc) from the main galaxie's mass. This is the effect of the so-called "Dark Matter". (We could re-translate "dark" as "resonant"...)

The redshift applied to electron wavelength is calculated as

z = 2piKd/Le

with K=8.13434(21), d distance between particles, and Le the electron's wavlelength.

Andrew Worsley Sergey Shevchenko Mazen Khoder Sagar Nanaso Salunkhe

In light of my recent research, detailed in the paper "Dark Matter is Just Gravity, Only Normal Matter is the Truth," published in the Indian Journal of Advanced Physics, I argue that what we refer to as dark matter can be explained through normal gravitational effects of ordinary matter. This perspective suggests that our current understanding of dark matter might be incomplete and that gravitational interactions could account for phenomena attributed to dark matter.

Furthermore, my forthcoming research extends this idea to dark energy, proposing that it too might be explained through phenomena we already understand but have not yet fully integrated into our models. By re-evaluating these cosmic forces through familiar physical principles, we might achieve a more unified understanding of the universe.

The idea of a single paradigm shift encompassing both dark matter and dark energy is intriguing. Such a shift could involve integrating these revised concepts into a broader framework that accommodates both gravitational effects and the expansive forces currently labeled as dark energy. This approach would not only address the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy but also potentially reshape our fundamental understanding of the universe.

I invite the ResearchGate community to discuss the potential for such a paradigm shift. Could integrating new findings on dark matter and dark energy lead to a more comprehensive model of the universe? What would such a unified framework look like, and how might it impact our current theories?

MOND in fact doesn't have anything to do with inertia-it has to do with tge principle of equivalence, which, in the Newtonian approximation, implies that the inertial mass-the mass that appears in Newton's 2nd law-is equal to the gravitational mass-the mass that appears in Newton's law of gravitation. Dimensional analysis implies these are proportional, it's an experimental observation, at this approximation, that the relative coefficient is equal to 1. General relativity provides the theoretical explanation, by showing that, if only the metric defines the spacetime geometry, then the only way to couple matter to the metric, consistently with invariance under diffeomorphisms, is through the energy-momentum tensor of matter, not the fields that define matter themselves. It is poseible to construct generalizations of general relativity, where the spacetime geometry is defined by fields beyond the metric, namely scalar fields, vector fields and spinor fields. These additional fields do couple to the fields that drfine matter and not to the energy-momentum tensor; therefore they lead to violations of the equivalence principle. MOND can be understood as belonging to this class of theories. There are tests of the equivalence principle and these do place constraints on such extensions.

Of course, it is much easier to take just two resting galaxies of different masses, m and M, located in a large empty neighborhood (and the distance between them is large, i.e., the MOND mode works).

The sum of Newtonian forces will be zero, but the sum of MONDian forces will be non-zero, ~ M \sqrt(m) - m \sqrt(M), i.e. the center of gravity will start to move.

Dear Tony Yuan and Readers,

The influence of gravitational waves on planetary orbits is indeed very small. The perturbation varies, however, between different planets:

>>begin quote

"Today, the orbits of the inner planets are known to a few meters, aided by the multiple orbiters at both Venus and Mars and their relatively short orbital periods. In the outer solar system, orbits are less well known, due to the fewer number of spacecraft that have visited those planets and the (much) longer orbital periods; the Saturnian orbit is the most well determined (tens of meters) due to the recently concluded Cassini mission."

<<end quote

The quote is from the following paper posted on the Research Gate

The theory explains the behavior of objects in space and time, and it can be used to predict everything from the existence of black holes, to light bending due to gravity, to the behavior of the planet Mercury in its orbit. The implications of Einstein's most famous theory are profound.

8 Ways You Can See Einstein's Theory of Relativity in Real Life

Dear Indranil Banik,

I agree based upon present theory, but I propose a far older universe but not one infinite in age. One in which it takes at least 50 billion years to form large galaxy cluster structures, in total contrast to present theory.

There are modifications and how to compute the effects of the additional scalar and vector fields, in certain circumstances, is known. Examples of such calculations may be found here:

and/or here: for instance.

my dear Robert Shour ..

the first feature is we must remove word "Dark" to explain the law. we itself agreed it is Dark then how is it possible to construct Law? we are escaping to understand nature properly by fictionalization and seeking more publicity. now a days "Dark" gives overnight publicity and media attention. for a human being it is enough.

hope Time heals everything....

Dear Thierry De Mees,

Your quote:

"If dark matter is invented and dark energy is invented, is the determination of these alleged values in amounts and distributions as necessary to calculate, with compelling precision, our diverse observations across the cosmos a proof at all of the existence of dark matter and dark energy? Or are the existing theories just false because they need these fallacious inventions?"

From what I and an associate, using statistics consider to be precise calculations, both dark energy and dark matter are both false hypothesis. But also because both have a very poor calculative ability compared to otherwise determinable observations of astrophysics alone.

Yes, the Big Bang model (BB) was thought to be correct before either hypothesis was invented, but now both are used to justify many other observation anomalies that are more difficult to otherwise explain.

Since the existence of imaginary things cannot be be disproved, only better explanations that are more obvious to the mainstream, will ever shake the foundation of these hypotheses.

IMO: When the James Webb goes up and is properly functioning, the present BB model will become seriously under fire because of the age limitation of this model which will be challenged by the observations of the James Webb. If a move were to be made using the Inflation hypothesis to vastly increase this age limitation (13.8 billion years), many would begin to seriously search for a replacement theory for the Big Bang. At the same time all of its theoretical tenets and hypothesis will become a target of fire, especially dark energy and dark matter, two of its weakest supportable hypotheses, a third being Inflation.

The problem of nature of gravity is linked immediately with problem of time. We must consider the problem of time in detail. If we do not consider the time only as uniform flowing we open the new world. The time in this world can flow uniformly, non-uniformly, the time can be stopped and flow in opposite direction --- from the future to the past. Assuming this position, we obtain that gravitation can be as the energy of attraction so energy of repulsion. These results can be obtained from the space-time described by de Sitter metric with positive lambda. Considering Schwarzschield metric in non-empty space (liquid sphere with constant density), we obtain that this space-time transforms by some conditions to the de Sitter space, filled by vacuum in the state of inflation. We obtain that the time inside and outside sphere flows in opposite directions. Sign of time changes at the surface where the time is stopped. With a position of a real observer Newtonian gravitation of attraction is linked with positive flow of time, and non-Newtonian gravitation of repulsion is linked with negative one. Gravitational force of repulsion is proportional to the distant from gravitating mass. Schwarzschield solution in empty space is the generation of Newtonian theory which is space section of Schwarzschield solution. Gravitational field is the field of repulsin or attraction in depend of distribution substance inside gravitating mass.

If "feeling" and "consciousness" are ignored, I think mind and matter could be accomodated in a single theory framework. In contrast, we indeed never assign "consciousness" to matter, and henceforth, the origin of the entire hardship of our concern obviously.

The only way they can be of the same sign is if either kappa<0 and f'(...)>0, or kappa>0 and f'(...) < 0. However, whatever the sign of kappa, since f'(...) can change sign-that's what the existence of a zero of f'(...) implies, first of all, it doesn't follow that R, assuming it's given by that expression, does diverge and, next, one must study the dependence on the initial conditions, to see what happens. 

In the proposed link GEM is presented like an analogy between gravitational field and electromagnetic field EM.  Generally the concept of analogy is the outcome of a comparison between mathematical  models of two different physical situations. If the comparison involves the same model form, also of course in the presence of different parameters and physical quantities, then the conclusion is that the two different physical situations present an analogy in the variety of content. In GEM the situation from the logical viewpoint is completely different. There are equations of the electromagnetic field and, supposing an analogy, analogous equations of a prospective gravitoelectromagnetic field are built. Generally analogy is the outcome of a comparison, here the analogy is supposed in order to reach analogous equations. This logical process isn't fully in concordance with the physical method even if unfortunately it is a very used process in postmodern physics. In casual terms it could be also possible that this anomalous process leads to an acceptable result and in that case nevertheless, analysing GEM equations, it is easy to identify a few internal weaknesses (for instance the analogy between electric field and static gravitational field, induction phenomenon and the assumption that prospective gravitational waves move with the speed of light). Electromagnetic equations instead are the outcome of a long theoretical and experimental physical process of analysis of electric and magnetic phenomena. Besides equations GEM would work only for supposing the existence of gravitational waves that anyway has to be verified experimentally. Considering the question with free mind that analogy appears little verisimilar and in fact in "Physics of gravitational fields" I have demonstrated the existence into gravitational field of a gravitational perturbation due to the motion of a falling body and that perturbation moves with the speed  c_p(r)=SQR[GM_or_o(r_o-r)/2r³].

Launch it into space. That should reduce the gravitational forces considerably. Just don't aim it towards a star, super-giant, black hole, etc...