Was there a 'birth of gravity'?

[Rymer]

But hang on, it is known that the majority of the normal (baryonic) matter within a cluster does not reside in the galaxies or, by extension, black holes (see Chalnoth's post regarding the mass of a galaxy's black hole compared with its overall mass). The majority of the mass is in the gas (the hot, X-ray emitting gas Chandra sees). In fact, the gas mass dominates the galaxy stellar mass by about a factor of 5. However, for the Bullet cluster, the lensing maps clearly show that the mass centroids correspond to where the galaxies are (i.e. where the majority of the baryonic mass is not) and that this is clearly offset from the gas, which is collisional, and has become separated from the collisionless galaxies during the merger. This strongly implies that there is a dominant collisionless mass component carrying the galaxies along with it.

Which super-massive objects? The clusters themselves have masses ~10^{15} times the mass of the sun.

I'm not really disagreeing with any of that -- they also state that these 'outside' areas of mass are on the expected course lines of the clusters as if there were no 'collision'. My point is simply, there are a lot of supermassive components in a cluster, many will be near the center and some scattered throughout the cluster. So my expectation would be that these objects would just continue on -- mostly uneffected. Likely there would be a concentration of such from the central zone -- but also from throughout the cluster.

So how can the properties of this material be determined -- and that its not baryonic?

 

[matt.o]

I'm not really disagreeing with any of that -- they also state that these 'outside' areas of mass are on the expected course lines of the clusters as if there were no 'collision'.

I don't understand what you are getting at here. Can you clarify?

My point is simply, there are a lot of supermassive components in a cluster, many will be near the center and some scattered throughout the cluster. So my expectation would be that these objects would just continue on -- mostly uneffected. Likely there would be a concentration of such from the central zone -- but also from throughout the cluster.

Again, what are you defining as supermassive? Do you mean supermassive black holes?

 

[Rymer]

Have YOU tried? Some may be, some may not. My point is that just looking at the star pattern is not enough to make the determination -- it is just being ASSUMED to be spheroid.

No, it's observed to be spheroidal. Both in the stars and in the dark matter distribution (which, by the way, tends to be spheroidal for all galaxies).

Sorry missed this one. How does this observation determine spheroid? without looking?

How do you directly 'observe' a dark matter distribution?

My point is that we only see a projection -- not 3D -- and it is only a projection 'visible' by some radiation -- which I understand that dark matter doesn't have. So using a spherical symmetric relation, mass is added to make the rotation curves match the result -- and that this pattern needed to do this was spherical. Now why doesn't that surprise me.

Beyond proving that some people have really neat math modeling systems I don't see it proves much.

All this is currently accepted is based on the assumption that the gravitation attraction of two peices of matter is solely determined by the properties of the matters pieces alone.
This is not necessarily true.

 

[Rymer]

I don't understand what you are getting at here. Can you clarify?

I'm not sure I can ... just that the fact that the matter found further along on the expected course only indicates it did not collide -- nothing else. No other properties.
Non-colliding baryonic matter behaves the same.

Again, what are you defining as supermassive? Do you mean supermassive black holes?

Well, if you insist on that Hollywood term yes -- but not only 'black' -- any matter that is not much effected -- that could include other less massive objects -- likely rather isolated ones that didn't have much to drag with them. ALL such matter would just continue on.

This means that this area MUST include such mass objects -- IF it exists some dark matter.
But how you can say ITS ALL DARK MATTER I simply don't see. This rather unique situation has far too many unknowns to determine much.

 

[matt.o]

So you are claiming that the extra mass component is made up of baryonic material like black holes and other massive compact phenomena? You'll need to reconcile these claims with primordial nucleosynthesis which predict there is not enough matter for this to occur.

 

[Rymer]

So you are claiming that the extra mass component is made up of baryonic material like black holes and other massive compact phenomena? You'll need to reconcile these claims with primordial nucleosynthesis which predict there is not enough matter for this to occur.

I'm not talking about any 'extra mass component' -- I'm saying there isn't one.

Do what does a 'primordial nucleosynthesis' mass prediction have to do with it? And what is the prediction?

 

[matt.o]

I'm not talking about any 'extra mass component' -- I'm saying there isn't one.

So, e.g., in the Bullet cluster, the masses inferred for each sub-component from the weak and strong lensing analysis is composed of what?

 

[Rymer]

So, e.g., in the Bullet cluster, the masses inferred for each sub-component from the weak and strong lensing analysis is composed of what?

Something with 'gravity'. Which could be anything -- including baryonic matter.

My model predicts that only something with QED components that have photon spectrum that includes pair production (baryons) -- can produce a gravitational field. Other objects can be effected by gravity -- but not produce it. Do you have other candidates than baryons?

Also the measurement of the expansion velocity is very convincing that there is no gravitational field opposing the expansion of the universe as far as we can 'see' -- maximum redshift for this around 8. This would seem to be an likely indication that gravity has little or nothing to do with the cosmological scale of effects even back to the big bang. The possible area of exception is symmetry -- but that might be due to any 'collection' of forces.

 

[Chalnoth]

For gravity to be modeled as due to a particle-like exchange it must be a massless one -- like some 'kind' of photon. Nearly identical to the QED model. The distance reference used in co-moving space in this model and datafits was calculated very simply based on a photon-photon interaction at pair production energy. Speculating these photons were part of the QED exchange. There interaction makes a net 'loss' as pair are created and the exchange broken -- a net attraction results -- gravity. This loss is apparently some 10^-40 of the QED spectrum.

No, gravity isn't nearly identical, at least as far as forces are concerned. It's mediated by a spin-2 massless particle, whereas a photon is a spin-1 massless particle. And I have no idea what you are talking about with this "loss", or how it could possibly result in a net attraction.

The reason this model supports this is that the derived distance reference is 17.0331 billion light-years and fits very well with the value needed to properly scale the Hubble relation in the co-moving arc.

You'll need to do better than that.

Hummm ... so what? The supermassive objects near the center of each cluster are not going to be effected much -- they will continue on -- just like the located matter did.
presumably the same would occur for other such objects not located as centrally.

Yes, but they only comprise a minuscule fraction of the total mass of the cluster, and are thus irrelevant.

All this 'collison' did was to strip off the lighter components of each cluster -- that in no ways identifies what the more massive components are. Normal baryonic matter -- supermassive -- would behave the same.

No, it stripped off the most massive components of the clusters, as far as baryonic matter is concerned.

2. I don't see how this complaint follows. I entirely agree with the distribution you state.

With most of the stars concentrated in the center, the shape of the distribution of stars hardly matters at all. That's my point.

Really -- and just HOW do you tell? There are an extremely few number of what look like 'spheres' -- most are prolate -- some oblate -- and of course the 'cylindrical' spirals, etc.

Gravitational lensing. And spheroidal includes prolate and oblate galaxies, by the way.

My look at this indicates that a common 'base shape' might be more cylindrical-like.

Where's your evidence? Put up or shut up.

 

[Chalnoth]

I'm not talking about any 'extra mass component' -- I'm saying there isn't one.

And we're saying that you have to reconcile this with CMB observations, which show dark matter in action before any compact objects formed. If you are unaware of this, then you have clearly failed point (1) of the alternative science respectibility checklist.

One place to start reading up on the CMB would be Max Tegmark's website:
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/

 

[Rymer]

And we're saying that you have to reconcile this with CMB observations, which show dark matter in action before any compact objects formed. If you are unaware of this, then you have clearly failed point (1) of the alternative science respectibility checklist.

One place to start reading up on the CMB would be Max Tegmark's website:
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/

I do NOT accept your checklist -- its based on a biased model -- a 'rigged game'.

First YOU explain WHY I get a straight line using simple geometry and a Doppler redshift relation. That is in your face DATA. This is NOT a big bang replacement it is 'big bang' -- without the distortions used with General Relativity.

YOUR scramble to protect a dying dinosaur of a gravity model is pathetic.

 

[Chalnoth]

I do NOT accept your checklist -- its based on a biased model -- a 'rigged game'.

First YOU explain WHY I get a straight line using simple geometry and a Doppler redshift relation. That is in your face DATA. This is NOT a big bang replacement it is 'big bang' -- without the distortions used with General Relativity.

YOUR scramble to protect a dying dinosaur of a gravity model is pathetic.

The CMB data in question has nothing to do with that. And by the way, I'd like to see a chi square analysis of this straight line versus the standard cosmological model.

 

[cristo]

That is what makes it 'crackpot' -- you should NOT be able to derive the age of the universe from constants like the Planck constant, the speed of light, the gravitational constant, mass of electron and average nucleon mass. But it does. Yes total crackpot.

That is why I'm asking for flaws -- wanting them -- this can't be right.

You've submitted this, including the attachment of the quoted post, to the independent research forum. Since it's clearly a personal theory, it is not suitable to be discussed in the main forums. You may only discuss your theory in the independent research forum.