Cosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology Cosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology Cosmic Concerns
From 'Now' to Dark Matter

A Paradox,  a paradox
Mass as the Confinement of Energy
Metaphysical Considerations
Gre theory and Dark matter
Anecdotes & Experiments
Comparative Physics
Tell a Friend

Cosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology Cosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology

Gre Theory and Dark Matter

Noel Eberz,     March 2006

The final essay brings all the preceding together, introducing a new ubiquitous particle responsible for it all with a  Snell’s law behavior and testable on both macro & micro universe scales. 

            In part, Gre theory arises from the perplexities of wave propagation and the unique case of electromagnetic (EH) transmission in supposedly empty space.  Yet in contrast, mechanical waves identify many subtleties of energy transmission.  For example, global seismic tremor states include compression, shear, Raleigh, and Love waves which also differ in velocity with density and/or phase of the medium, all crossed with the frequency of the disruptive force.

            At first glance the EH counterpart in space appears simpler and more constrained.  This is particularly brought home with the concept of the photon as a fixed packet of energy as the product of Planck's constant and frequency, and sacrosanct with the velocity of light (Voc).  Yet in the comparison of these waves, one is energy transmitted thru a mass medium and the other, pure energy thru no medium at all.  Add to this, the latter has a dual nature of both wave and particle with the classic enigma of which is more real.

            First back to the historical square one.  My idea of Gre theory originated in optics with Snell’s law related to the Refractive Index (RI) used in lens design.  Putting it into a differential equation with density of the medium a variable (dRI/dx), even if an imaginary entity, it might refract light and slow light velocity as we observe in gravity environments as an alternative to Relativistic interpretations.  In other words, Abell 1689 might be imagined such a variable refractive lens as noted here in the cover image and first article.  Note physically, such a variable density lens hasn’t been engineered but a Newtonian reflective lens of a 2 dimensional surface (angle of incidence) accomplishes the same effect that a refractive lens with a single RI attains with variation in thickness in 3 dimensions.

            But back to space, what might the medium be?  Only mass has physical density.  Photons may have energy but no rest mass.  Mass yields a gravitational field but that is a force, not mass itself.  Could there be something about space or a space fabric that create these optical features that is modified by a gravitational field.  Since there is such a horrendous ratio between mass and energy, could somehow the space fabric represent some degree of both?  And how is energy confined in mass yet so transient in free space?  

            Could space be a sea of photons (it is!) going thither and yon or more realistically be a very different kind of particle, in the epitome of pure energy, much smaller but always in motion?  Could the particle be mass-less, forever in motion and interactive only with other such particles yielding refractive properties?  The assertion is based on the instantaneous statistical count (number density), in which their velocity would slow and path of travel refract to the same local count gradient, obeying essentially only Snell’s law.  Could a momentary concentration of these fleeting particles sustain a magnitude and a ‘concentration’ over time, independent of the coming, slowing, bending and going of any one particle?  This is analogous in the modern world to a sustained traffic jam independent of the individual vehicles.  Could this temporal concentration be akin to mass as a confinement of energy?  By this time, I gave the elusive particle the name ‘Gre’ - the ubiquitous little ‘erg’ backwards.

            An old idea from the early 1960’s, I ran a computer model of this on a massive then-modern machine, a CDC 160, 64K of memory for 12 bit words.  The model presented a presumed Gre density count (a pre-designated configurational RI) and tried to match the statistical integral of all the assumed direction paths of Gre from a uniform 3 D background just obeying Snell’s law. A coworker who helped in the runs called the program Noel’s Notion.  Essentially other than satisfying my curiosity that it worked, it did not get much farther than that.

            Indeed, only a notion but it did precede many other new things in particle physics and cosmology theory since 50 years ago.  But my concept of Gre ‘in size’ might be analogous to that conceived today for Strings.  Gre particles are also mass-less, but they differ markedly with their perpetual motion and self refractive properties in this space rather than Strings in or of vibration in other dimensions.

            First, while I have asserted my principle notion of time as only ‘now’, that theme has been further augmented with other papers herein of the paradoxes of Relativity, mass as energy confinement, emphasis on what the space fabric might be, etc.  In this frame work, the Gre notion returns with much more substantiation in other subtle ways as follows.

            Reiterating, the instantaneous density of Gre particles, from all directions, is the relaxation rate of space and in inverse fashion, the derivation of the velocity of the Voc.  Permanent configurations define mass and photons are wave manifestations thru the Gre medium.  Review Figure 1, Gre density plot above.  It is a one dimensional plot of Gre density (assumed from all directions) delineating a sub space fabric with superficial mass, energy and gravity characteristics.  The diagram suggests a number of integrating relationships in Gre behavior.  Diagrammatically shown is the Gre density increase across the plot representing a larger regional gravitational environment and the significant effects a gravitational field would induce.  Individual Gre particles slow and refract, including an attraction for Gre concentrations representing mass as does one mass concentration with another.  A large number of mass concentrations enhance the  base level of Gre which tapers off in 3D to yield the normal gravitational field.  These are the basic observable features above the mean density but the figure also shows imbedded in the ‘space fabric’ a number of implied un-obserables.  The two features superimposed in the Gre space-fabric are a wave packet in transit and mass, a temporal confinement with duration and hence a visible location.  Further notation suggests spin or curl as an integral part of the visible mass with other recognized features in the sub-space fabric such as potential Casimir effects or virtual particles .

            While here the concept of charge is elusive with Maxwellian notions of curl and divergence, there is a suggestion.  Consider the Gre diagram base line as a potential quantizing with the possibility of ‘a reverse Gre void’ and/or if below this zero base has any further meaning.  Charge is inherent in mass and wave propagation.  As in standing wave patterns, can it too be created as one of the properties of Gre density behavior?

            Some clues to answering these questions have been hinted at in the preceding papers discussing; time, space, substance, Black vs. Grey holes and lastly, the earlier universe pre-star galactic quasar phase (Chaisson, 2006).  A first assumption, and integrated in Figure 1 below, stipulates that Gre density is random from all directions.  That is ideal but new notions come into play when the larger environment provides a more directional component as might be implied from certain larger mass associations.  One, can be a curl component normal to the gravitational gradient and another as a divergence of Gre from mass changes or destruction, radial to the gravitational gradient.  This inquiry leads to the nature of Dark matter.

            I admit I am perplexed how charge is contained in Gre theory but there are hints to its nature and declare it must be inherently tied to it rather than being some other unique entity.  While poorly familiar with String theory and while defined as other dimensions, we might say, strings imply a more stationary particulate behavior which strongly contrasts with Gre’s fleeting dynamism.  And I must either admit ignorance as to Strings derivation of charge or find the idea of an open string rather ad hoc as opposed to a closed string being a graviton .

            Another stipulation of Gre theory is that Gre particles do not collide like mass particles but rather pass thru each other, as for the most part, it appears photons do.  One ramification of this is for large objects - e.g.. most things including galaxies.  We would conclude they would have curl variation in many different directions.  But as we consider much smaller objects (particles) does the curl equal spin and become ever more one directional?  So easing again into Maxwellian notions, certainly there is something profound in both the small & large scale configurations of mass, a characteristic known as the right-hand-rule and definitely a space phenomena of mass charge and magnetism at any scale.

            Now, an amazing thing about the ratio of E to M as defined in E=mc2, is that it is a variable tied to the Voc (my emphasis).  Much has been discussed previously why it is a variable, just as some recognize the real variation in time rates.  Recognition of this gives pause to consider the two elements of light slowing down; refracting with gradient and velocity variation with the space fabric density or scalar value.  Somehow I always balked that the vector sum of gravity inside a planet or star was supposed to be zero.  Could this illusion still have a scalar value that serves mass in other ways or determines the value of the Voc itself?             

            Another important distinction of Gre distribution about the universe is equilibration.  While the universe might be considered dead if equilibrated - nothing left to modify - how much might large regions have the propensity to change over what duration?  First the immediate.  In whatever way perceived, gravity waves - as a minimum - are transmission of change in mass in one location to its distributed gravitational field elsewhere.  The mass change in a supernova event would qualify as such a change.  But there are infinite smaller examples.  In other words, does the gravitational field only reflect the status of mass around it?  In contrast, the Gre distribution is part and parcel with mass hence has its own energy confinement potential.  The field itself has ponder-ability.  The many exchanges of potential and kinetic energy (PE & KE) interaction with the gravitational field are typical but miniscule if recognized at all.  Yet in each local environment the great equalizer, E=mc2, rebalances the confinement ratios to the constants perceived by the isolated observer.  Simply, if clock rates change, the E/M ratio changes also.

            On the large scale, there is a significant difference on what we might call collectively space, space fabric and its contained gravitational field properties associated with the concept of Gre distribution, which is all these things.  Foremost is its scalar value, which can be pretty flat, not only in remote space but also in peripheral mass associations , yielding a little slower Voc even if only a little denser.  Presently this is considered no gravitational field at all.  Yet this is akin to the integral of Mach’s background stars or the inertia factor, cause enough why inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent.  But if there is a gradient, this differential density indeed becomes the gravitational field with its recognized mass attractions.  Particularly noticeable is its refractive properties on photons in higher gradient environments e.g.. grazing the sun.  Yet this is the same effect on mass objects in the radial direction we call gravity.

            Some of the preceding effects described here are just traditional interpretations, which proves little more about Gre than arguing the superficial aspects of a geocentric vs. a sun-centric perspective for the solar system.  Therefore to me, a major proof is the suggested temporal Gre distribution and disturbances from former curl concentrations including in the extreme, Grey holes.  Destruction of Gre curl as in mass entities, like a Grey hole, disperses radial quantities of divergent Gre flows that are not inhibited from escaping by an event horizon imagined in Relativistic mass density extremes, notably Black holes.  Delayed yes, but also adding to the nominal gravitational field and similarly diminished by the square root of the radius from the source.  If this is the case, this release is an addendum to baryonic gravitation and here a candidate for Dark matter.  Again on the galactic scale, while a solar system might quickly rid itself of simultaneous or unusual multiple Gre curl directions, galactic environments might harbor them over considerable durations.  Such features of Gre behavior consequently parallel notions of the nature of Dark matter as determined in ever larger galactic configurations.

            As a final deviation from conventional interpretations, concerning the notion that gravity is somehow particulate (think graviton) and can be incorporated into the Pantheon of all particulate mass entities, and just awaiting the final summary in the TOE - Theory of Everything;  Rather  here, Gre in space is everything, of which mass particles are but one of its manifestations, while gravity is the gradient of  Gre distribution, its scalar value yields the relaxation coefficient of space and determines the Voc itself.  This scalar variable is potentially the indirect product of more distant but accumulated Gre concentrations or thinning thru-out the vast universe we observe.  Again see Figure 1,  A Gre density plot dividing  ‘Space’ into Observable Macro effects and the ‘Space fabric’ of unobservable Micro effects.  Attempting to depict, the instantaneous  Gre density would vary some from deep space to galactic space and much more with the gravitational fields created by great concentrations of baryonic matter all adjusted by the exchange ratio in E=mc2.  And in analogy with the earth’s four different kinds of seismic waves, baryon mass may itself be complex configurations of standing gre wave patterns.

Critique of Dark Matter

‘In search of Dark Matter’, Ken Freeman & Geoff McNamara, 2006, is an excellent review, both historic and technical, of what is and has been known of the Dark matter phenomenon.  Amusing, irrelevant and unrealized, I was born in 1933 the year Oort and Zwicky rendered the proposition.  Obviously much has changed in my 73 years except the mystery itself in what it is.

            Well measured and determined associations with various  galactic structures, the interpreted view of this now assumed dominant feature of the larger universe is divided in unseen dark large objects, Machos and unknown and undefined exotic particles, Wimps.  So identifying the source of this effect has remained elusive but the magnitude of its effects are much more perceptive and historically comprehensive.  Observable mass, bright stars and even clouds of darker dust adds up to the observable mass but that falls short of the apparent intensity of the gravitational field that matter should produce.  This difference is deemed Dark matter.  Summing the mass can be a chore but the gravitational field intensity is determined by orbital velocities of the visible objects as measured in Doppler shifts of light spectra.  This has been a capable process at least for close galaxies back many years.

            Feel free to read the book, but Eric Chaisson in ‘Epics’ introduced me to the notion that primitive massive quasars might have proceeded stars - e.g.. a top/down organization of space and matter.  But why the horrendous radiation from something that is not a high density/temperature of a star, an essential aspect of nuclear process?  Maybe something else unknown?  I resurrected my Gre theory as a potential candidate and reading this Dark matter book only brings up more questions and possible hints that Gre theory may indeed be a magic answer.  But like Milgrom’s suggestion therein, Pg. 114, not Dark matter but an alternative to make it go away.  Here are my general notes of the Freeman/McNamara book with some cross reference to Gre theory.

            Freeman/McNamara state Dark matter yields a gravitational field but differs from baryonic matter (so far baryonic Machos end up too rare) ;  It creates no object in itself except occupying very large areas of space.  However these vary in degree.  High density includes Elliptical galaxies, then Spiral galaxies and down to none in Globular star cluster.  Another classification is Hot vs. Cold dark matter, both declared pristine products of the early Big bang universe and possibly influential in creating the  early filament structure.  Today and quite definitive, the present interpreted make-up of the universe is: 4% Baryonic matter, 23% Dark matter and 73% Dark energy.

            Dark energy, a new idea on the scene, is summarized as a property of space.  It’s variable in that it pushes against space volume hence expands space diluting the attractive power of mass.  This created the expanding universe but also has the defined characteristic of being constant for any given volume therefore becomes more dominant a force with space expansion hence the Accelerating expanding universe.  It was briefly mentioned in F/M’s book and not really relevant here.   

            So back to Dark matter.  While considered pristine - not only around for a long time and a permanent entity - was created at a specific Big bang epoch and having its present acquired distribution from earlier time. I find two major behavioral questions. 

1)  What keeps Dark matter from creating dense objects themselves or become part of normal mass behavior - why diffuse and with/without particle object motion?  There seems little to compare it to normal mass - a mass object creates a gravitational field, attracts other mass and has motion.  Since Dark matter is unseen as mass, could it be something that just yields a gravitational field?

2)  Nothing is mentioned as to the why of its permanence like mass - just assumed?  Yet its behavior might suggest it could have a temporal characteristic, being, going away or not present in various galactic structures.

             So while earlier perplexed why Quasars might emit massive radiation but be neither stars or Black holes, I suspect a unique Grey hole destruction of mass as confined energy, a strange kind of massive high density and nondurable accumulation of substantial early universe space, operating like a star, on scales we are unaware but to Gre theory releasing a vast divergent Gre flux effecting the region.  This speculative assertion makes more sense after dealing with more contemporary cases of Dark matter.

Galactic structures - See Figure 2, Galactic structures with/without Dark matter.

            Filaments are the largest organizational structure of vast dimensions of clusters of galaxies stretched out in a filamentary fashion with ever greater voids of space between their web like structures.  So vast, not really optically visible, these structures are established by galactic density counts and computer modeled into a visual image.  The Imiloa Astronomy Center of Hilo, Hawaii has a dynamic 3D projection film created by the Japanese Astronomy Institute and vividly shows the imagined dynamic structure  in motion (like an accelerated tortoise race).  Dark matter is an assumed significant part of the filamentary structure.

            I have not specifically heard but I can imagine these bizarre vast webs in two ways.  In analogy, like a bubble foam.  One, the air creating the soapy filament boundaries or conversely the soapy filament structure attracting itself independent of the air.  The latter is the assumed gravity effect and the consequent vacuous space incidental.  This is an imagined early universe effect and is related to the Cosmic background radiation with its subtle temperature variations and considered the cause of the original bulking of the visible mass of the universe.  See Figure 9,  Galactic structure with/without Dark matter outlines;  a) Vast galactic filament structure (the surmised galactic density distribution),  b)  Elliptical galaxy and generally corresponding Dark matter cocoon,  c)  Spiral galaxy with a spherical Dark matter halo also extended to the disc configuration,  d)  Globular star clusters devoid of Dark matter.

            Elliptical galaxies show little structure other than very random stellar motion in all directions.  This yields a fuzzy cocoon appearance and further appears to have a corresponding Dark matter component in conjunction with the random stellar mix.  Spiral galaxies are more subtle in Dark matter distribution.  Certainly there is some in the pinwheel structure but also beyond the disc in a more spherical halo closer to the center mass.  The halo area while thinly populated with stars and star clusters has distinct random motions compared to the well organized spiral pinwheel motion.  While globular star clusters are common in the halo region and considered ancient, they do exhibit velocities of the halo Dark matter compliment.  They themselves appear not to contribute to the sum as they behave only as a swarm of bees creating their own personal gravity field.

            How Gre contributes to these galactic features can be described three ways:

First, the greater the mass density of an object, the longer a Gre particle resides in the object before passing thru.  As noted in Abell 1689, there are hundred day delays of transmission of one focus image compared to another.  And that is an un-obscured path.  A single Gre particle wielding its way thru one mass particle and endless others could amount to millions of times more delay.  After all, any one Gre particle is both in the Voc base space stream but also resides in proportion in all the mass present, all in perpetual motion.

            Second, the space of the larger galactic object has a certain ponderability/gravibility itself and can harbor a denser space/slower Voc as an extended curl component.  The larger the object the greater the effect.

            Third, If the object contains a central Grey hole, the potential for a divergent Gre flux is added.  This flux can vary with the activity of the Grey hole to attract and consume mass.  Conversely, the Black hole only absorbs mass, and does not release even the photons of light – its assumed mathematical curse.

            The Spiral galaxy distribution of Dark matter may best resolve these combined effects:  The central spherical halo could be principally divergent Gre in all directions and not particularly in long residence before attaining outer space distances.  Most large Spiral galaxies are purported to have Black holes and stipulated here as Grey holes, to be the source off the extra divergent Gre flux.  The Dark matter in the pinwheel disc reconfigures or better retains the Gre within the mass of the disc shape and would have longer residence times accordingly.

Filaments and Galactic Arms

The grandest recognized cosmological structures are a vast web of filaments studded with the galaxies and galactic clusters.  If these are higher gravity environments, then in Gre theory they would be analogous linear wave guides of greater Gre flux patterns.  Anything that increase the  residence time of a Gre particle created additional ponderability.  A map of this aggrandizement over cosmological time (lookback) seem to confirm this idea of and itself a large scale gravitational attraction preceding mass (particulate aggrandizement).

            Galactic arms would be a extension of this concept particularly emphasizing the leaky nature of such extended but thinning wave guides.  The residence time of any one Gre particle is defined by the size of the object and all its Gre density variations and graduations.           

And finally, irregular galaxy structures as products of galactic collisions and disturbances would be more temporal, having come from earlier more equilibrated states. if unequilibrated in the larger region, Gre would appear as dark matter as E=mc2 of the object balances out to its new lesser gravity environment.  Recently observed, a galactic collision shows a distinct separation of baryonic and dark matter that might be such a temporal unequilibrated state.*

Compared to Strings in terms of testability, Gre theory has potential at both the macro and micro scale at least in Euhler computational crunching.  At the macro end this mode is already been used in evolving galactic and super galactic models.  In terms of a particulate model, I think the proton/neutron quark model puts a lot of constraints on potential triplet configurations of Gre standing wave patterns and maybe how to fit charge in. 

* To date three examples of dynamic Dark matter configurations have been identified.  All can be interpreted as temporal behavior of gravitational fields on large scale baryonic structures.

1)  A double galactic collision, 1E0657-556, significantly separating the baryonic component from what would be the assumed normal Dark matter distribution. 

2)  A strange Dark matter halo about two colliding galactic clusters, ZwC10024-1652.  Described as massive ripples but also focusing extra illumination in the image.

3) An extensive directional deep space Dark matter survey showing a progressive clumping of Dark matter from approximately half the universe age to the present, identified as the Cosmos project at Cal Tech.



‘In search of Dark Matter’, Ken Freeman & Geoff McNamara, 2006

‘Epic of Evolution’, Eric Chaisson, 2006

The Universe’s Invisible Hand, Scientific American, Feb. 2007

‘Not Even Wrong’, Peter Woit, 2006

‘The Trouble with Physics’, Lee Smolin, 2006

A Late addendum on Filaments, Gre theory & Swimming pools

            As a habitual pool swimmer in sunny Hawaii, an environment of quiet mental contemplation, I’ve observed an interesting sunlight display pattern on the pool bottom.  First, the pattern has a distinct focus depth vs. a blurred out-of-focus at other depths.  Yet the pattern has an instant filamentary network display even if quite dynamic in movement with respect to some average wave height at the water surface.  I postulate this filamentary pattern has parallels with the super galactic filament images (as of now mere computer constructs).

            At present there is a cosmological concern on the rapid condensation of galactic masses and their filamentary patterns in the very early universe, enigmatic for either baryonic or other gravitational trends.  Various ideas of Dark matter has been studied to possibly contribute to this accelerated evolutionary phase.

            While I am biased with Gre theory, I do see a significant difference in an imagined aggrandizement of some diffuse Dark matter density variations utilizing its local marginal gravitational enhancement vs. the focusing potential of a Gre flux.  Let me explain:

While I am comparing light photons in my local pool, any photon focusing is trivial, but not if it were a Gre flux.  First it is ubiquitous in space (that’s all there is) and itself travels at the Voc.  That local gradients of this flux also refract Gre directions, this process would be amazingly faster than any mild in-situ gravitational effect.  Also as the pool demonstrates, the lower the wave height, the greater the focal length.  This seems an ideal situation for vast space starting with minimal gravitational variations effecting distant areas at the speed of light.  It also seems like a flexable positive-feedback mechanism adapting to smaller scales with time.  Previously I have already suggested these filaments act as wave guides for Gre flux, ever tightening their structures.              


Some Gre theory terms

Gre space - a cube of Neutonian/Euclidian space, any size, containing a temporal quantity of Gre particles.  The residence time of any one  Gre particle varies as to the density of other Gre particles present which controls the velocity of Gre particles which is the Voc itself and any curl component induced by the instantaneous gradient of the same temporal Gre particles.

Gre flux environments can be:

a) Minimal density and isotropic directions of travel - This would yield a high Voc, zero gravitational gradient and minimal mass likely to modify the gradient or curl statistics.

b) Nominal flux variations - Nominal mass configurations, nominal residence times for individual Gre particles and nominal curl statistics. Eg. A planetary system with angular momentum and a Voc inversely proportional to the gravity gradient

c) Notable Gre flux environments and the E=mc2 ratio - A particle of mass is a dynamic standing wave pattern of Gre particles creating resident times such that the local E=mc2 appears a constant and having a permanent observable existence.  Eg.  Mass is a significant confinement of temporal Gre particles where the gravitational field about the mass determines the Voc Eg.  The Voc, c equals the sq.rt. of E/m.  If this confinement was instantly destroyed, the excess Gre would quickly dissipate (diverge) at the Voc of  the environment - and there would be a dynamic reshuffle of what the gravitational field configuration would change into, or more relevant in particle collisions, the debris products into new Gre standing wave patterns.

            On the macro scale this varies from apparently static Dark matter configurations, as in galaxies, into recently recognized dynamic Dark matter environments that reveal long temporal readjustments of  the Dark matter / gravitational field and/or recognizable separation of baryonic vs. exotic matter.  So on a grand scale Dark matter is gravitational environments exhibiting ponderability (mass) not in permanence like a mass particle but exhibiting either a dissipative or aggrandizement trend based on their larger space environment specifics.

I actually came up with a Snell’s law particle before String theory was formulated by combining the idea of gravity and mass in some kind of equivalency.  But it was Peter Woit’s book ‘Not Even Wrong’ that convinced me that the Gre particle was much more realistic than a String and as likely as small and undetectable except for its group behavior.  So there you have it.

But in these writings I began to see  a ponderability in the gravitational field itself.  Not only the Voc different in different environments but also seeing E=mc2 as an exchange ratio rather than  a stated constant and proportional to it.  Then particularly seeing denser  gravity as essentially Refractive physics with the Voc slowing down.  There after it was not difficult to imagine mass, energy and gravity in space all the same thing and to interpret it as  dynamic ultra fine ‘Gre particles’ simply obeying Snell’s law behavior.  So does E=mc2 mean E and M are the same thing, or change from one to the other or that one is fleeting and the other a significant capture of that fleeting whatever?  By its nature, Gre particles in perpetual motion assumes an absolute space or equivalently stated, Cosmic background dependent - CDI.

Cosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology Cosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology

Home | A Paradox | How Big? | Flat | D #s | H-B-N | Big Appearance? | The How of Now | Mass | Metaphysical | Gre | Anecdotes | Comparative Physics | Author | Contact | Tell a Friend |

© All Rights Reserved.