return to updates
Cosmic Mass Deficit
First published February 19,
will show that the "missing mass" is not lost somewhere
out in the dark regions of space. It is lost within our
misunderstood field equations.
you can see from this recent book cover, one of the greatest
mysteries of cosmology theory is the mystery of the missing mass.
According to most computer models, using any number of
standard-model theories based on the big bang or similar
generators, there appears to be too little mass in the universe
to explain current motions, densities, and so on. This is why
dark matter was invented: to explain the mass deficit. Over the
past few decades, any number of models with varying amounts of
cold dark matter or warm dark matter or lukewarm dark matter have
been presented, but all of them have problems. I will not gloss
these problems, since I believe they are all fake problems, based
on bad assumptions and postulates. Meaning, the lost mass is not
lost out there somewhere in the dark corners of space. It is lost
in the dark corners of bad or misunderstood equations.
tenuous and changeable a solution as dark matter has proved
itself to be, it is by far the least esoteric of the current
solutions to mass deficit. Hundreds of avant garde solutions have
also been offered, some by big names in theoretical physics. I
will also ignore these solutions, since they are strictly
desperate. Some of them are frankly ludicrous, and merit no
reply. Suffice it to say, here, that even the most entrenched
standard model folks believe this is a problem not yet solved.
Almost no one believes the answer is in hand. Many if not most
would admit that the mountain of conflicting theory has reached
the point of being a big unsortable mess. Most proposed solutions
have little to say for themselves, to differentiate them from any
other solutions, and the greater part have the appearance of
groping. Even the best solution, dark matter, is so fluid and
capricious, it hasn't been able to finally convince anyone.
simple, logical solution to this mystery of the mass deficit has
been sitting in full view, tacked onto the end of my
paper on charge. But because I haven't put it under its own
title and spent any time publicizing it as the solution, it has
so far passed mostly unseen and uncommented on. Possibly it will
remain in that state even now, but at least I can no longer be
blamed for not highlighting it and posting the proper signs. In
that paper I showed that charge must have a mass equivalent. In
rigorously defining the foundational E/M field as a mechanical
field (instead of an abstract or probabilistic field), I proved
that this field must have mass or mass equivalence. This does not
mean that there is anything wrong with the probabilities of QED;
it simply means that there must be a physical field beneath these
probabilities, creating them. I showed that this field cannot
logically be mediated by so-called "messenger photons,"
since messenger photons are not mechanical bodies. They are
abstract and illogical bodies, with non-mechanical properties or
attributes or characteristics. Instead, the foundational E/M
field (the field of charge) must be mediated by real bodies. We
can call these bodies photons, if we like, but they must give
their messages in a mechanical way. To do so, they must have and
transfer energy. Real forces cannot be mediated by "virtual"
particles. No, charge is and must be the summed mass or energy of
these photons. Charge causes a force, and force cannot be
imparted by a mechanically undefined field; it must be imparted
by something capable of imparting force, and the only thing that
is mechanically capable of this is mass or mass equivalence.
If we give the radiation that causes
the charge the mass required to achieve this force, then we have
a form of mass that must be opposed to the mass that creates the
gravitational field. By that I mean that the two fields are in
opposition to eachother mechanically, and as vectors. One must be
negative to the other. By this I do not mean anything esoteric. I
am not creating some sort of mystical negative mass. I only mean
to point out that every particle’s radiation must have mass,
and that this radiated mass creates a vector field that points
out, whereas the gravitational mass points in. We already know
that, in a sense. However, we have not included the idea in the
math, or in the total mass involved in the math.
In a third paper
I have theorized that the foundational E/M field is always
repulsive, at the level of quanta, mediated by these photons. All
charge forces are ultimately caused by bombardment. Electrical or
magnetic attractions are always only apparent, caused not by real
attraction but by relative attractions. This means that the
proton does not actually attract the electron. It only repels it
much less than it repels other protons. This leads to an apparent
attraction, since the (“gravitational”) expansion of the
proton allows it to capture the electron, but does not allow it
to capture other protons. This leads to the appearance of
attraction, in the dual field that is the gravity-E/M field. [I
explain this in more detail here.]
When we measure the mass of a particle—either by using
a scale or by looking at deflection—what we must be measuring
is the sum of the two fields. We are measuring the gravitational
force minus the force of the E/M radiation. This is simply
because (to take the example of the scale) the radiation is
bombarding our equipment, offsetting the “weight” of the
particle itself. It is as if the particle is a little rocket, and
our scale is the launchpad. The particle has it engines on all
the time, and therefore we are not measuring the full weight of
the particle. We are measuring the gravitational force minus the
Notice that the
rocket analogy is not quite right, since a scale on the launchpad
would actually measure the force of the exhaust. But when we are
calculating the mass of a particle, we are not putting it on a
scale in that way. At the quantum level, we are measuring its
deflections from other particles, and calculating its mass from
the summed forces. But these forces must be compound forces. The
expansion of the quantum particle makes it appear to attract all
other particles; its radiation makes it repel all other
particles. The total force is a vector addition of this
attraction and repulsion.
means is that the true mass of the particle must be greater than
the mass we measure or calculate with our instruments, whatever
they are. [I have provided equations for this true mass in my UFT
paper.] If you take the mass of the particle to mean only
its ponderable, gravitational characteristics, then
that mass must be greater than the one we always measure. We are
measuring the mass of the particle minus the mass of its
radiation. Therefore its true mass is the measured mass plus the
mass of the radiation.
In the end,
this is not because the radiation mass still belongs to the
central mass even after it has been radiated—not in any sense
at all. No, it is simply an outcome of the math. It is due to
vector addition and only to the vector addition. It is a straight
outcome of the fact that the gravitational field is one where the
vectors point in, and the charge field is one where the vectors
point out. This makes the true mass of the central object the
addition of the absolute value of both fields.
say it in the simplest possible way, the masses we have been
measuring up to now have been unified field masses, coming out of
Newton's unified field. But because we did not know Newton's
field was a unified field, we did not know our masses were
unified field masses. Because the unified field contains the
sub-field of E/M, and because the sub-field of E/M is in vector
opposition to the total field (causing it to be subtracted from
the total), our current masses are deceiving. They are too small,
and they are too small in the amount of the E/M field. To make
the correction—to find the real
mass—we have to add the E/M field to every mass
in the universe. In other words, to make a correction to the
total mass of the universe, we have to add the universal mass or
mass equivalence of the entire E/M field.
you have fully absorbed that, you will have understood that
calculating the true mass in this way must vastly increase the
total mass of the universe. Over any dt, the mass of any material
object is determined by the gravitational acceleration caused by
that object during that time, by definition. But up to now, we
have only been measuring a compound
acceleration, which is the differential of the
gravitational acceleration and the foundational E/M acceleration.
That is, operationally, we can only measure with our instruments
the force due to gravity minus the force due to the mass or
momentum of all the radiation. Therefore the true mass must be
the measured mass plus the
mass of the radiation.
that this change in mechanics gives us a double
addition of mass to the universe, since we gain both
the mass of the radiation itself as well as the higher true mass
of the radiating particle.
these statements are true:
1) The mass of the radiating
particle must be greater than the mass measured by our
instruments, since our instruments measure a compound mass.
The radiation itself has mass or mass equivalence due to energy,
which is a second addition to the total mass of the universe. A
radiating particle does not lose mass, which means that the
“holes” left by radiation are filled. They are filled by
recycling this charge.
Of course this immediately and
simply explains the "mass deficit" in the universe and
in current theory. We don't need massive amounts of dark matter
or any other ad hoc fixes,
since I have just shown the missing matter and energy. All we had
to do is define our charge field as a mechanical field instead of
as pencil lines or probabilities and we could have avoided this
mess from the beginning. They forgot to
weigh the universal charge field.
to now, this extra mass has been hidden in two places, lost there
by two fundamental logical errors. As I said, the first error was
in not defining the charge field mechanically or physically. The
charge field must have mass or mass equivalence. The second error
has been in misunderstanding Newton's equation. Newton's equation
has always included this foundational E/M or charge field, but no
one has seen that. Newton's
equation applied to a unified field from the beginning, but
he did not see that, and no one since has seen that. His field
and equations have been assigned only to gravity. But his numbers
are unified field numbers. In this way, both the charge field and
the mass of that field have been lost to history, until now.
the same way, the
field of QED is also an unrecognized unified field. The
quantum field is the same unified field as Newton's unified
field, with only one difference. In Newton's equations, it is the
charge field that is ignored; but in QED it is gravity that is
ignored. Newtons assumed that all motions at his level were
caused by gravity. He was wrong. QED assumes all motions at its
level are caused by E/M. It is also wrong. At all levels, all
motions are caused by the unified field. And, as I have just
shown, recognizing this fact completely revolutionizes the vector
mechanics. Once the vector mechanics of this pretty simple
unified field is sorted out, we find two sources of new mass.
Because the unified field is a differential vector field, one
component of the field was completely masked by the other one.
Once we recognize the existence of this other field, and
recognize that this field must be a physical field, we must also
recognize an entire new source of mass. This solves, with one
stroke of the pen, the entire mystery of the Cosmic Mass Deficit.
Addendum, 2010: I
have now calculated a mass for the charge field from
mainstream numbers and simply mainstream equations, proving that
it outweighs the "matter field" by a ratio of 19 to 1.
This matches the 95% number we get for dark matter. Dark matter
is the charge field. It is not non-baryonic, it is photonic. With
equally simple math, I calculate the density of the charge field.
It is about 1/12,000 that of normal matter. High mass, low
density, just like the WIMPs wanted.
If this paper was useful to you in
any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE
THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing
these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by
paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de
plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might
be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33
cents for each transaction.