Is Dark Matter Gravitational (Like Gravitons?) What’s Wrong With Heavy Weak Intuitions about MOND...　
b The November 2010 issue of Scientific American has the headline "Dark Worlds" about the Weakly Interacting Massive Particles with a whole elaborate zoo of as yet unknown or nonexistent motes or perhaps mostly so to explain just two observations; stars galaxies and gas clouds move faster than they should by the visable matter, and the heavy weak bosons W and Z are a bit too massive by way of the calculations we have. For all the speculation however, the only solid evidence it seems is the change in gravity. If this is so, I think gravity may be the solution. If we were told there was electricity and density of mass, an unlikely conclusion would be that we would then be able to have found the laws both of subatomic physics and electromagnetism both just by lots of thinking and prediction of unknown particles, especially if there may be a much simpler solution to the dark matter problem, use of Einstein’s idea of a lower energy reradiant electrogravity that would both power the cosmic expansion and be the world of dark matter and dark energy in a gravitational form I call DGE, Dark Gravitational Energy.

  I first got the idea for DGE from the ghost particle problem; ghost particles would be used to unify both inertia and gravity. Even so I disagree with some others who promote their version of the ghost particle physics who say these denizens of the implosion would have no mass. They exert pressure in my interpretation for both gravity and inertia, so they are particlelike, if so they have "sides" like particles and particles have mass. What exerts pressure would have mass. Black holes are found to add mass in accord with the ghost particle belief (although at just half the rate as found, Click here for more.)

..
 At any rate ghostly physics for gravity and inertia seems to have the problem of why the earth isn’t putting on lots of weight. This may be how Einstein may have reached his conclusion about the cosmological constant, he used to explain why the cosmos hasn’t collapsed under gravity, later found by the cosmologists to be the expansion of the cosmos we observe. The field might radiate in by gravity exerting pressure and then reradiate as Einstein thought, at another lower energy (and without exerting so much pressure so we don’t fall off the Earth by antigravity, no doubt). As I say on the page of the first link this idea could be useful to solve many other problems unknown in Einstein’s age, e.g the Pioneer Anomalies, and much more.
.. One of the advantages of the GDE ghost particle physics is it would explain why the galaxies are all spinning too fast so they would not be stable by the observed rate of spin. Dark matter or DGE seems of worth based on the bending by starlight and so on, so we believe there’s a giant sphere of dark matter all around a galaxy holding it solid to spin around so they don’t expand outward.

 The solidity might come from aligned jets of black holes forming the spiral arms as they evolve from many smaller streamers to just a few spiral arms with older galaxies. The black holes would merge with tiime, ultimately forming the solid linear spiral arms which always have streamers that trail the motion not leading. This would explain the solidity, just as bodies around us get solidity from the electromagnetic fields. Click here for my page about how Black Holes might explain the evolution of galaxies. Even so solidity wouldn't explain the faster spin, so I think stronger gravity might be needed here to explain e.g. why older galaxies weigh 1000's of times more than they should by implosion of visible matter seen around them.
It's possible heavy particles like WIMPs would interact with gravity just somewhat and no more, to me this seems like heavy lightness or a linear wheel. I favor DGE because gravity interacts with gravity already without assuming ad hoc physics. If gravity interacts with all the rest of the cosmos according mostly to mass, why not with WIMPs if the Wimps are bending the light like gravity? Gravity seems basic and how much it's influenced by gravity seems to be the foundation of what mass is, a heavy particle may not influenced by gravity that much, especially if how we know it's there is by how much it bends light by its gravity.
..
This use of DGE would explain many things, including the union of general and special relativity. There would be no need for WIMPS where the GDE would do well here because it’s agreed by all the marms who tamed the internet and presumably they are the astronomers who hold the stars and planets in a line, the one thing we can say about dark energy or WIMP’s is that they attract light by gravity, though not heavy mass within "what may be" the halo so much.
.
 WIMPS are believed to interact by just the weak force and gravity, and this is held to be an continuation of the physics tradition of around 1900 when Fermi used the observed unknown cause of radioactivity to explain proton and the WIMP used to be the cause of  the W and Z bosons, which I think is not necessarily so.

 I believe gravity would be enough to explain dark matter in a simple way. The particles would move at high speed, perhaps much faster than light in a radiant spherical halo. Their kinetic energy and low individual attraction per particle would make the halo, even so because they have mass, they would fall back in with enough distance, thus as I say the giant masses like M31 would hold on to their mass and add mass over time, explaining the otherwise unknown problem of why these massive wheels have about 1000 times more mass when older than new, even with no viable connection with the rest of the cosmos seen, and how high energy starlike distant bodies have no wheel of milky whey like cheeze for fuel otherwise seen. If millionaires have bought the world's supply of Munchy Cheeze, so VISA can't have any, so be it1

 If there is the mass of Dark Matter and it’s adhering to the mass, it attracts itself and the stars too, heavy mass settles down much sooner so there would be huge changes in fusion not seen. We know dark matter attracts matter because it bends light reliably and the galaxies are spinning fast. If heavy particles were the cause, the lives of all the stars would be much reduced, and the stars we see could hold much more fusion. If WIMPS are what spins galaxies and bends light there would seem to be giant realms around where we would see both nothing in the center and lots of X rays around the outside where they fall in, a huge border zone for all of the outer realms! We presume WIMPS would interact with themselves and being so massive they would find the center of stars and change fusion.
　
  DGE, not WIMPs would solve the mystery of the famous Bullet Cluster, which is actually a pair of massive clusters that have impacted, the most high energy events known other than the Big Bang itself.

"The gas mostly impacted at this range left the stars mostly with the same motion. For this reason it’s believed dark energy interacts with usual mass without much force since it stayed mostly aligned with the stars in collision."
..
If the field were only under the influence of DGE and gravity they would have not have had a strong cohesion, as observed, WIMPs being 100,000 or billions of times more massive would be adhesive either way. The general way the DGE bends light as strongly as it does would be, like with the neutrino, the huge numbers of the DGE particles and their high speed if FTL would have much mass and energy in general, thus the particles would bind loosely like gravity at shorter distances, while over greater distances they would bind and multiply up the force, perhaps like Einstein’s other idea that large mass increases over time with the implosion of the field. This is why we ourselves don't weigh a huge amount like dwarf galaxies around the milky way that are found, only at greater distance is there higher speed of the DGE, and the reduced friction by reduced field density would multiply up the force as seen to warp the galaxy, and so on.

The higher energy denser field would be the same matter wave field as in QED with its evidence of the mass moments of two masses on a beam thrown up in the air spinning around the com and easily and regularly changed by just changing the masses even in "empty space" by an "l" shaped connection, or by the exaust of a rocket that would press against a dense enough field to move it forward, ect. For the dwarf galaxies the weight of the bubble is higher not like our weight falling to Earth if from an airship, rather most of the motion of the field here is outside the bubble, this is why you don't weigh much if you are a singing diva! The bubble in fall has resilience so not much pressure is felt inside it, but much weight could be added on from the outside since gravity not the bubble which as for the spinning masses and the c.o.m. are not gravity, since they're there even if no gravity is present for the l beam and the two spinning masses in the lab.. The outside flow if gravity wouldn't be limited by relativity so it would have much more change in weight than just small changes in the speed of light seen in relativity.

  I believe relativity can't explain changes in weight. If there is much change in weight of two masses not the same, mass is momentum, or quantity of motion, more mass would mean a much larger change in the speed of gravity. With relativity two masses will always weigh the same because of just the relative motion of the field not the mass which is not in the equation for free fall since different forces are used to raise the two masses to the same height. If we assume the force is not important, than we are also have no explanation of momentum, and the horizontal F=ma seems mysteriously distinct from the zenith fall of relativity. (No doubt We can't do without Special relativity, and it's needed to watch Zenith TV rerun! But General Relativity and gravity seem not to fit and may allow other options.) If you think of force and momentum as more important than space, the masses are unified, horizontal or in other realms. I think Einstein was assuming what he was trying to prove about the two masses and gravity. (You lift them to the same height with different forces, then they have the same speed. Force seems more important than space since force does work, so the same force to the different masses would lift them to other height and they fall at different rates, General relativity may be general somewhat! Even so there is a large change in two masses, and the redshift speed of light is a much smaller change. I believe If all gravity was the same all masses would fall at the same rate and the Earth moon system would spin with the same center of mass halfway, and all planets would have the same acceleration of the field, since all fields are equivalent and acceleration is essentially not considered. You may say, what about the acceleration of Mercury, frame dragging ect. But these are changes in acceleration, not the two masses falling at the same rate, the theoretical foundation of General Relativity. For more see my Physics Synopsis/GWD upper left of page.


If each mass has an aurora and it's caused by the low energy faster than light field, Einstein's idea about gravity at just the speed of light means only the wavelength not the speed of the standing wave around a mass would change. This would explain why a heavier mass moves slower with the same applied force, it's field is spinning that much faster by its mass, so it has that much more resistance to the external field not explained by relativity. It's also a standing wave, even so the pattern of the interference bands may be much unlike what relativity would predict. In GWD, the speed of the component waves in and out is much higher and an acceleration, and a much greater change in speed than by relativity as a percentage to explain the difference in mass. By finding these bands we may be able to figure the speed of the waves. An experiment I propose is to take two masses and set them stationary, then measure the bands by slowly moving an atomic clock between them. In order to measure the bands which may be faint, moving the clock's probe at a slow speed, perhaps over years or months may help improve resolution of the field.


You may say as Einstein did, there's no field there it's just a vacuum. I don't ignore the pressure a starship exerts on a field, the masses on the boom like the Earth and moon, or that as Aristotle believed, a truly empty field would allow infinite speed of propagation. And Maxwell's exact prediction of the speed of light was based on the assumption of the resilient medium. The field doesn't just dissappear when acceleration would stop for a starship in uniform motion, instead in GWD it's balanced by Maxwell's use of two opposite charges like elevator weight and balance, and the overall pressure in uniform motion or at rest is 0, so by a sort of bouyancy the field seems to vanish but only in linear motion. The field is there all along and the quanta freeze in the motion and the speed of light, but indeed the speed is momentum, so changing the wavelength by acceleration say 20 times gives us 20 speeds of light in a nontrivial sense.

  If we know the mass of the DGE particles and we know how fast the galaxies gain or lose mass we know the total energy imparted per particle acting on each and the general force of gravity, and from this we can calculate the radius of the halo by how far up the particle will go before it falls back toward the center, a calculation impossible with WIMPs which would just be too heavy to not fall in.
..
As I believe, the motion of the gravitons or DGE in this calculation may be faster than light. Even so gravity is gravity and the general F=ma would still hold to unify the field mostly. I agree with Einstein's idea that if there is a low energy particle we could get around the Uncertainty Principle by reduced interaction so the light measuring a cushion is not so massive it changes the cushion itself, this is anti relativistic as Einstein believed, and I believe this is a good reason to consider that relativity may be incomplete. There seems to be no need to believe that the observer has a beam in his eye that changes what's measured in any absolute sense, Einstein asked, "do you really think the moon is not up there when you don't look to see it", Real relativitistic!" I believe use of F=ma not the Uncertainty Principle may be the foundation of lower energy physics the more mass the slower a body moves by lower energy and F=ma. This may be how to calculate the mass of the lower energy particles Einstein believed in, the more mass the slower the travel so if the acceleration of gravity at the earth's surface is 32 ft or so (astounding R value of cool in summer!) we know the mass by the force applied and the speed, you apply force F to a mass, if it moves at speed a you know its mass.

 It's known by how dark matter bends light that it actually moves slower than light if it's there, but this may only be the aurora. The particles of air of the atmosphere near us moves much faster at shorter distances than just being loosely dragged around if the Earth moved faster like a large bubble. Thus while the general motion of the DGE may be slower than light, this doesn't rule out that some DGE particles are faster than light and they also may explain many other mysteries and so on.
　
..
 The other evidence is taken to be about the mass of the W and Z particles as evidence for WIMPs. They seem quite a bit heavier than they should be, as if multiplied up by the force of the unseen massive particle where they shouldn’t by the simple calculation. Would this be proof of the WIMPs we might find with the LHC or other machines now that they are "live"?

..
While no doubt, and in time we may have more evidence, my belief is in DGE. Just as faster than light particles may explain the dark matter and more, faster than light spin of subatomic particles inside the outer realm of the electric charges may be used to describe all the particles heavier than the electron which relativity can’t by way of faster spin of the field more than relativity’s speed of light just for the electron and light by GWD, my theoretical generalization of Maxwell’s idea, the changes in wave density always have changes in speed to conserve momentum; more mass more speed. The FTL matter waves would change phase fast from solid to wave to explain both waves and particles at the limit being one, there must be underlying union (other than if they both radiate out from the center, one wave and one particle, but this wouldn’t be disproof of GWD. Even so in order to change to a wave already spinning at the speed of light the same field however would seem to need to change to a particle at faster than light for any change.) If mass is mostly spinning energy to conserve mass and energy, all the non electronic quantum numbers including the mass of the W and Z would be caused only by changes in momentum of the field. We may say the W and Z seem to be anomalous, even so there are so many quirks and foibles of the quantum numbers, there could be 50 internal causes for why they have the extra mass, all of them determined by the faster than light motion of the field perhaps where relativity would not allow not by WIMPs. If the standard theory was perfect the constants wouldn't be unknown and the assymmetry of matter and antimatter would not be seen as in the newer experiments here in 2010. This was predicted by Dirac by combining Special relativity with QM, so my question is why are not equal matter and antimatter seen? Einstein used relative motion of wires and magnets as evidence for SR. Neither is in a privelged frame at rest or of motion in relativity, so if mass like matter and energy like antimatter were exactly the same there would be the same amounts of each.

We may ask why do the galaxies with the huge halo of the dark matter spin faster matter and bend light both, under the influence of the dark matter, yet the dark matter in the pistol nebula seems to bend light while the normal stuff seems to flow through it? This would be much the same as both the anamolies with the space probes outside the solar system moving too fast and the galaxies spinning a bit faster while the bending of light seems to belie a huge attraction of 97% of the mass in the halo. In these three examples, we know the outer light reaching us is much bent while the normal mass at the center remains much the same, other than moving perhaps 3x the speed of Newtonian mechanics or relativity for the galaxies. All three examples may be unified by the aurora. Inside the aurora the inflow causes common gravity, and the reradiant outflow of the particles would keep all the masses from gaining at a huger rate per second via implosion, perhaps like Einstein thought about this. Even so the reradiance, under the influence of the gravity waves would only reach up so far before the particles would fall in and be recycled by the field. (Gravity waves would be needed to explain how, if both particles and waves are there as the source of all other fields are there, they don't radiate if particulate and unconnected, a problem with any particle way to be the way out for gravity as in the ghost particle method. The waves may mostly be the power source to overcome the entropy of thermodynamics, waves attract and unify)..By reradiance and implosion both the field would be "renormalized" while also under the motive force of the waves, which exist also outside the aurora. Actually the density of the particles is just lower and never zero in order that gravity could not just attract the starship, the galaxy and the cosmos out in range. If we ask where's the extra mass holding the galaxy with the light bent this may be no more a question than asking why the starship outside the solar system may be more moved than the solar system. The solar system would have just common mass inside the halo where the forces balance with the common law of radiant energy while outside the waves are moving more without resistance, and the galaxies also have no huge extra mass even with the light bent. This is of course a version of MOND, even so it may have all the advantages of explaining inertia and gravity while also the distinctions that Einstein didn't note. E.g.aAs I say if gravity and inertia are unified, why are they so hugely unlike in strength? Gravity cancels out by acceleration of falling, inertia by linear motion. Gravity can't be stopped, inertia is cancelled by turning off the elevator motor of Einstein's elevator. Click here for more.

 Note that the high energy events we see in the above are both higher in mass and energy. The motion of the particles is almost at the speed of light. In relativity since mass and energy are equivalent and the motion is fast we expect the particles to have large mass and large gravity. Relativity says all the mass is increased with high speed motion so the motion of the high mass density already there would have stronger gravity. Einstein believed that gravity waves move at the speed of light or slower to obey relativity. If the gravity propagates at the speed of light the direction of travel of the particles would have to have a polarized motion relative to the field. Carl Sagan in Cosmos describes a relativistic motorcycle. The observers at near the speed of light would only be able to see the light ahead and not to the side because of the displacement of light. If gravity is much weaker it might seem it would just bypass this problem but motion is motion and relativity holds an absolute foundation in the unchanging speed of light. Thus I believe that the gravity if it obeys relativity would have the exact correllation of the polarization. Einstein believed it was space time itself that creates the polarization, so there would be no "loose ends". Masses fall at the same rate in GR and the rate of fall is held to be essentially mass independent. If gravity is thus for the high mass energy events at the speed of light by relativity we would perhaps see polarazation of both the gravity and the particles. The mass and energy of the pistol nebula have no great changes in the gravity observed according to the motion. This is one reason to believe gravity might travel much faster than light. Instead of large relativistic effects, gravity being lighter than light might move faster than light. Though the particles would act by proxy Faster Than Light propagation of the waves would be seen. This is indeed what Van Flandern notes about the displacement of light for gravity as we look to the sun, as we travel there is virtually no displacement seen as we would expect if gravity propagates at much faster than light. Van Flandern by other calculations predicts the lower speed limit, mine is an exact value, 3 times 10 to the 37th power times the speed of light as I say here on my Physics Synopsis. If we see the high energy events and the field was with communication at just the speed of light, the gravity is changed, and if it actually is 10 to the 36th power faster, the change in gravity would be almost the same as gravity near the earth in this respect.


 My revival of Einstein’s idea and more would allow for the problem of why dark matter and dark energy is just three times as dense as dark matter, not 1000x or 10 million; The magnetic field may power cosmic outer travel of the jets and the gravitons of gravity may be equal in power to the outward magnetic flow of the field, like centrifugal and centripetal force, where thay would balance at long range, the strength of the two would be much the same so there would be no need to use mysterious forces or particles to unify the physics. We have general evidence for lower energy fields.

General Wave Dynamics Synopsis....