/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11264415
Henry Segerman shows off this 4th spatial dimension stuff really well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbUOScpu0ws

You can see how the size of the shadows increases exponentially as a proportion of the model size, the further away from the centre they are.

If we had a model showing concentric orbits, we would see that the further out from the centre you are, the larger the orbits get.
With consistent orbital periods, the orbital velocity should INCREASE exponentially in the projection (going middle-out).
This will cancel out with the exponential DECREASE in orbital velocity, that we predict from the inverse-square law alone.
Giving us the flat rotation curve for galaxies that we observe.

Just MODIFY GRAVITY to give you the DARK MATTER.
DARK MATTER is just NORMAL MATTER hiding in a 4TH SPATIAL DIMENSION.

There has been zero direct detection of Dark Matter and no indirect detection can be distinguished from normal matter that we just can't see.
There is a very strong correlation between the amount of normal matter we observe and the amount of Dark Matter we predict.
The best evidence for Dark Matter comes from the areas with the highest density of normal matter.
The best evidence against Dark Matter comes from areas with the lowest density of normal matter.
A 4+1D Space-time works to explain gravity (Kaluza-Klein). So apply that version of gravity to the most obvious example of gravity not working the way we expect.

This video shows what the 4th dimension looks like:
https://youtu.be/LOVzytir7bM

The depth of the 4th dimension is determined by the amount of mass present. What's happening is that gravity is distorting space-time. The deeper in the 4th dimension something is, the smaller it appears. To normalise our observations for galaxies to account for this, we have to increase the size of objects proportionally to the amount of gravity acting on them. This will increases our estimates for mass.
We can actually see objects getting smaller, proportionally to the gravity affecting them, in the rubber-sheet experiment. It just appears negligible.

No WIMP BS, no screwing with the laws of physics.
All the observations accounted for by Dark Matter, plus that nice galaxy rotation curve that only Modified Gravity gives us.

>>11216299
Sorry, I forgot to link my earlier post.
>>11214095

>>11214951
Yes, that's my point.

>>11215194
>>11215286
Can I just swap locality for relative-locality (relative to the photon) and keep realism?

>>11215586
You either need hidden variables or break the speed of light. Both of which are fucked.
Or you can try to wrap your head around the fact that an if an object is moving infinitely fast, it exists at all points along it's path simultaneously from it's perspective.
Good luck!

>>11216300
Hmm. Well you can watch any of these https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=triple+phasor+paradox or do the experiment at home to show it's not a hoax.
Then picture the photon as a line instead of a point like particle and watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFah3SZ5UdA
I think you'll like it.

>>11216304
Cheers to that.

>>11216353
C'mon, we're using electro-magnetic wave, photon and microwave interchangeably. Play nice.