The Matter of "Dark Matter"

There have been many postings about the mysterious "Dark Matter" which is
alleged to constitute 90 to 95% of the mass(energy) content of the Universe.
The presence of this "Dark Matter" is indicated by the observed gravitational
behavior of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. A large effort is apparently
underway to detect this "Dark Matter" and to determine its nature. In all of
the discussions there seems to be little attention to the 3 - 3.5 degree K
background radiation known for decades to be present. If one examined the
energy represented by this radiation, he finds that it is 10 to 20 times the
energy represented by the mass of conventional matter. Obviously, however,
there is no need to pay attention to this radiation because, as everyone knows,
electromagnetic radiation does not possess inertial or gravitational mass.

Since everyone "knows" that electromagnetic radiation does not possess
inertial or gravitational mass, it behooves us to examine the validity of that
belief. It has long been known that electromagnetic radiation transports
momentum as witnessed by the pressure of Solar
radiation which causes comets to have "tails". In addition, mainstream
physicists have discussed the feasibility of using "light sails" for the
propulsion of long distance space ships. Mainstream physics tells us that the
momentum transported by a photon is identical to the momentum which would be
transported by a material particle of the same total energy (rest mass plus
kinetic energy). - I know that the rest mass of a material particle traveling
at the velocity of light must be zero. But lets not quibble, divide that zero
by the zero represented by the Lorentz Transformation for mass and the inertial
mass of the material particle can have any value between the limits of +/-
zero. Since momentum is equal to the product of inertial mass and velocity, and
the momentum of a photon is given by its energy divided by the velocity of
light, then dividing the equation which provides the momentum of a photon by C
shows that the photon behaves as if its inertial mass were equal to its energy
divided by the square of the velocity of light. Maybe photons do not possess
inertial mass in spite of observation, but as far as the writer is concerned,
if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, he is
willing to accept that it is a duck. The inertial mass of photons meet this
test and if the current state of physical knowledge teaches otherwise it is
time for physicists to rethink the subject.

Since photons act as if they possess inertial mass traveling at the
velocity of light, the background radiation of space must exert a pressure
which acting to cause the Universe to attempt to expand. Let us examine whether
those same photons possess a gravitational mass. This is best done by
considering an ideal thought experiment along the lines of those used by Dr.
Einstein.
Consider a cold gravitational massive planet in intergalactic space (to
eliminate spurious disturbances). Attached to opposite sides of this planet are
columns each of which support an ideal retro reflector having 100% efficiency.
A beam of photons is sent from one of the retroreflectors, is bent by the
planet's gravitational field as required by General Relativity, and strikes the
retroreflector on the other side of the planet. Because these are ideal
retroreflectors, the photons are constrained to continuously travel bask and
forth past the planets surface. It is a simple calculation (not involving
relativity) to show that as a result of the gravitational "refraction" of the
photon's path the process will cause a net force to be exerted on the
retroreflectors in a direction which is "down" at the point where the photons
pass the surface. If we are to accept that the "Laws of Conservation of Energy
and Momentum" are valid, then there must be an upward pull on the planet equal
to the downward push on the retroreflectors. If these two forces are not equal,
the entire system could be used as a "space tug" in violation of Newton's
Second Law and/or a source of limitless energy in violation of the First Law of
Thermodynamics. The thought experiment is diagrammed in
http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/cf83.gif. Its validity does not depend
upon relativistic considerations. This thought experiment shows that, if light
is observed to be "refracted" by a gravitational field, that "refraction" must
result not from the 'curvature" of space but from a gravitational force. The
magnitude of that force must result from the photons having a "gravitational
mass" equal to twice their inertial mass. For a more detained discussion see
paragraphs 8.8 and 8.9 of http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/hoax.htm.

When one combines the effects of the gravitational and inertial "masses"
the photons which are observed to propagate through our Universe one finds that
the inertial mass tends to act as a gas to expand the Universe while the
gravitational mass acts like any other gravitational mass and acts to contract
the Universe. The size of the Universe at any one time is determined primarily
by the balance between these two effects. Once the "big bang" state had been
reached, the pressure of photons acted to produce the observed expansion which
will go on forever. All of these conclusions are derived and discussed at
http://www.members.aol,com/einsteinhoax/site.htm .

The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm .
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE
HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST
BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://www.members.aol.com/postinglog/newspostings.com

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a
regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as
they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please
do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at
the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

For a response send E-Mail to

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have
mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.

Dinoiro wrote:

The Matter of "Dark Matter"

There have been many postings about the mysterious "Dark Matter" which is
alleged to constitute 90 to 95% of the mass(energy) content of the Universe.
The presence of this "Dark Matter" is indicated by the observed gravitational
behavior of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. A large effort is apparently
underway to detect this "Dark Matter" and to determine its nature. In all of
the discussions there seems to be little attention to the 3 - 3.5 degree K
background radiation known for decades to be present. If one examined the
energy represented by this radiation, he finds that it is 10 to 20 times the
energy represented by the mass of conventional matter. Obviously, however,
there is no need to pay attention to this radiation because, as everyone knows,
electromagnetic radiation does not possess inertial or gravitational mass.

Since everyone "knows" that electromagnetic radiation does not possess
inertial or gravitational mass, it behooves us to examine the validity of that
belief.

E-M radiation doesn't have any invariant mass. But it does have energy
and momentum and thus can generate a gravitational field in the
GR.

So what you think that everyone "knows" is inconsistent with
GR basically says that you are rejecting GR based on your
own ignorance of what the theory says.

John Anderson