Sunday thought experiment: In gravitational model objects fall independently from mass. In dark matter model objects gains gravity independently from mass?

Dark matter and energy-mass relation keeps the same inverse relation according to mc2|cm2 pair equation where cm2 is only 99,9% valid and defines dark matter equation which completes general relativity.

Also the theoretical extra curvature of sun according to dark matter equation remains a constant of 0,000007% which becomes a property of gravitational spin not a property of mass

—————-

Old theory

A new idea makes me rethink today all the facts regarding dark matter theory mc2|cm2 inverse force relation

In gravitational model objects fall independently from mass. In dark matter model objects gain extra mass independently from mass?

If so, mass is not important in dark matter model. Speed and angular spin is. If so dark matter is not only inversely related to mass-energy and proportional to force (speed or spin velocity) but dark matter becomes now a new momentum theory which relates extra mass not to higgs energy but only to object inertial frame of reference or physical motion in relation to a vacuum. Dark matter becomes a pivotal extra force between general relativity and quantum dynamics. Gravitational effects relates then not only to inner quantum mechanics but also to outer relative mechanics.

—————–

Old theory

Today my personal idea of dark matter just got simpler and beautiful according to mc2|cm2 relation. While mass remains a constant like in the free fall experiment, dark matter only relates to speed or spin velocity. So

If general relativity fits the model of dark matter according to mc2|cm2 relation, then dark matter model relates only to speed or spin velocity in relation to c while mass remains a constant. If so, our sun should produce an extra 0,000007% relative gravitational distortion according to dark matter. Also all physical objects should produce dark matter proportional to speed or spin velocity.

I also approximate that from the overall volume of 27% (observable dark matter) 1-2% is produced by matter while the rest of 26-25% is associated directly to back hole density in the universe. Dark matter density should also relate to absolute spacetime density or black hole mass which should be 99,9% square Higgs energy. Dark matter could prove that mass, unlike energy, can’t square perfectly. Mass it’s an imperfection model.

Can you help me verify these measurements?

Thanks

————————

Old theory

I personaly believe today that gravitational density is heavier than vacuum density. I also think that it’s inevitably to think that according to dark matter model a mass-gravity equivalence relates specifically to a Higgs-vacuum relation where gravity arises in the form of how much energy the Higgs field gives away when submerged inside vacuum density. And all other physical forces should relate directly to vacuum density using Archimedes flotation principle. I believe spacetime translates as relative density.

——————-

Old theory

Look. General relativity reads Gravity stands alone, mass relates directly to energy. General relativity also reads dark matter as more mass more Gravity related independently (inversely) to mass-energy source. For me this simple information is enough saying mass-Gravity equivalence specifically related to dark matter. Dark matter therefore reads the relative mass-energy equation in reverse in relation to c constant.

Then there’s the photoelectric timeline. The photoelectric time line reads c^2 from mc^2 equation as a mechanical electric/magnetic spin limit which brakes electromagnetism into quantum entanglements. Such theory is directly related to energy that was before the Big Bang glow and proposes a mathematical c^2n equation which can measure how much energy was before the Big Bang depending on quantum entsnglements speed. I think mc^2/cm^2(99,9%valid) explains spacetime as a complete simple and elegant theory.

————–

Old theory

Ok. I personally think that the cm^2 equation it’s not actually a physical field equation like in a classical view. It’s more like a general quantum perspective i think. So it’s more like 99,9% a physical equation. You can write it down on paper and then erase it a little bit. I also think this is the main rational reason why it’s at the same time so hard to observe in physical nature and so impossible to explain in fixed physical field equations. It’s like something that doesn’t really exists. It’s like a shadow schrodinger cat equation. Could easily say it’s a mirror effect (virtual-energy reflection (the vacuum general effect))

This is a full tweeter personal note of my imagination game (principle) running at biomechanics rest state always in physical nature. Yes I think the human brain is also part of a physical force field subdivision (quantum) in relative nature describing only rest state forces (Newtonian and Archimedes type)

If general relativity lurks all over the spacetime physical experience with special relativity on top (constant spacetime peak being reached at c^2 electric/magnetic spin point) then you can’t trick me (my special special observer case) with tiny quantum effects-reflexes (velocity short range reflexes in flexible (elastic) spacetime) which only appears to brake the general and special relative case using quantum back doors (Bohr jumps). Quantum then becomes only a special case observer type which is the whole curving effect in relative spacetime (ranging from individual Planck to 99,9%c-Planck) that constantly brakes into quantum apparently faster then light physical effects. And they should be only effects (spacetime shadow curvature). Quantum theory, I think, it’s a general effect force (inertia or momentum theory) only. It’s the general spacetime effect which says that you’re not able to observe all quantum spacetime moving at the same time due to restricted light observatory (constant closing-opening physical geometry) “all seeing eye” effects which I personally imagine describing the physics eye of the universe. It’s like the universe can’t see it’s whole mirror reflection. And it must do things “blindly”. Like a quantum intuition. Yea I guess that’s far enough imagining the strong relation of a human mind with gravity and all other physical forces.

OK. People, look, you have been left with a relative-special theory (unfinished business) that has been written (imprinted) in collective knowledge with gravity standing outside the mass-energy (strong-weak-e.m. relation). So the only way to resolve the energy/mass equation (mathematical ratio) and fully unify gravity with everything else, I think that “first” you have to integrate?, somehow, gravity, into “some” physical form (shape) of mass (density type fluid) and energy (Higgs-vacuum special decay). Higgs can explain you everything I think. It should be the general-special Higgs boson type, the main (elastic source) description of spacetime elasticity itself. So it should be an “elastic” physical boson particle type (meaning holder of strong force including its variation property) which can vary “extremely” across light speed in general spacetime and be able to decay not only into pure energy but it can also be able to contract (hold) mass into (via) gravity and vice versa (more mass more gravity results in both cases), using a physical inverse relation in spacetime (negative energy-acceleration I think) which can only happen under extreme pressure points in physical relative-special spacetime given a certain fact that negative energy should mechanically work using the inverse principle of thermodynamics which is based only on lower gas symmetry accumulation starting with vacuum energy and ending with dark energy and also with time physical partially independent force. It also means that at quantum-relative small-big scales of spacetime, general spacetime reads vacuum energy as general negative energy including the antimatter that followed soon after the Big Bang “glow”.

So. I think it’s highly important to consider a medium quantum chance that mass and gravity could form a classical direct mass-gravity relation in such way that gravity would constantly make physical objects appear heavier in relation to a vacuum. And I say mostly appear because the faster you go in any physical direction, the more gravitational force you’re able to directly convert-invert into physical mass, resuming you produce more mass therefore you generate more (extra) gravity in relation to a vacuum at constant rest state, meaning that the sensitivity of such mass-gravity direct inverse relation should be constantly mediated by dark matter measurements in relative spacetime. The mass-gravity direct inverse relation should be so sensitive that even independently speeding particles inside a vacuum which carries mass could be eventually converted into black-hole-particle type bosons by accelerating them even closer to c speed where dark matter energy is proportional to the overall mass-gravity volume of energy. The more you turn gravity into mass, the more heavy the speeding particle is and the more gravitational force it produced in relation to a vacuum and vice versa. So dark matter should always be there, orbiting your regular physical gravitational field. No matter what you do to mass-energy relation, gravity and dark matter stays inside the equation and therefore is always present in physical spacetime even before physical mass ever existed. It’s the physical starting point. You could argue that the Big Bang is allowed to manifest only after the physical existence of gravity and dark matter using only vacuum energy to consolidate the idea.

I think the case with physical negative energy is that it constantly runs at 99,9% twice more volume than positive energy (general relativity) meaning that the overall ratio of gravity-mass-energy is almost a perfect overall 1:2 mathematical ratio which I personally believe to be the math theory equation in spacetime also written in relative spacetime as cm^2(99,9% physical truth). You eventually have mass on one side of the equation and you have almost square mass (99,9%c accuracy) on the other side of the equation, resuming the other side of the equation is a spacetime singularity or most commonly depicted as black hole event horizon in relative spacetime. So the idea is that black holes are the strongest relative objects which can form and therefore hold true negative energy against itself (negative field energy). Black holes can fight the vacuum best by using the highest physical negative force available in relative spacetime in the form of dark matter relativistic effect or extra gravity and mass. Hidden mass in hidden dimensions of hidden spacetime hidden within the relative singularity frames which composes a black hole event. And now I feel my personal imagination going more easy on me. It’s great to feel the freedom of imagination even if gravity sometimes appears to violate the curvature in spacetime itself.

————————

Oldd theory

A new approach to an equivalence-nonequivalence relation

before considering any mass-gravity direct relation (physical interactive pressure) in general spacetime you have to consider first that mass-gravity relation looks more like an imperfect equivalence event in relative spacetime which is actually a nonequivalence principle (variable relative equation parameter)

so I think you’re missing the 99,9%m^2 (99,9% of all spacetime energy aria-volume) mass-gravitation nonequivalence validating a divergent 99,9%c spinning black hole “singularity” horizon and I think you’re missing it by a Planck-weak diameter

mass-gravity nonequivalence? almost square mass? 99,9% of all spacetime energy inertia? gravity only adds more mass in relation to a vacuum (more or less black hole mechanics) because gravity should be directly related to spacetime density so physical objects should only get heavier in relation to a vacuum when you measure their gravitational force due to quantum uncertainty events. A relative-quantum object should weigh gravity or “counter mass” depending on how you observe the relative-quantum object (you measure quantum or relative, touch-nontouch)

and I believe this is pretty much my final idea on mass-gravity nonequivalence (spacetime singularity event horizon) principle

Think that eventually a black hole (singularity horizon) don’t emit regular relative energy like all stars do but instead it emits physical density (more mass) in relative spacetime in the form of dark matter (more gravity)

—————————-

Old theory

cm^2? 99,9%(valid) square Higgs energy? divergent spinning black hole horizon?

cm^2? (99,9% valid) 99,9%m^2 mass-gravity equivalence? you’re missing the unification point by a Planck-weak length

Say you take 99,9% from energy-mass equivalence to quantify a special mass-gravity 99,9%m^2 equivalence using 99,9%c inertia. You gain a 99,9%c spinning black hole divergent horizon weighing 99,9% square (newtonian force) Higgs energy inside a vacuum. You obtain 49,9% more gravitational force (dark matter)

you’re missing the 99,9%m^2 (from 99,9%cm) mass-gravitation equivalence validating a divergent 99,9%c spinning black hole horizon (99,9% square higgs inertia)

first you take all energy in spacetime and obtain a general energy-mass equivalence principle; then you take a specific 99,9% of all energy in spacetime and obtain a gravity-mass equivalence of 99,9%m^2 (99,9% newtonian force) to describe black hole mechanics (spacetime singularity); a spacetime singularity describes mass-gravity equivalence (99,9% energy-mass equivalence)