Alternative Theory to Dark Matter

[Questioner]

What might be happening is a black hole reaches out at certain radii and pulls space inward towards itself.
This creates compression rings in space.

Space compression creates matterless mass,
in the same manner as a moving object in space creates mass as it compresses space.

This would explain both the movement of outer stars of most galaxies as well as the lensing effects that are observed.

That would be why it has no discernable gravitational response.

Since it isn't universally consistent there must be some parameters that it is subject to.
Whether these likely parameters are observable to/by us inside the universe i can't say.
We could look at speed and orientation of spin or possibly magnetic characteristics of black holes to see if we find any correlations.

We already know there is a tight correlation between the masses of galactic central black holes and the strength/extent of the effect in their respective galaxies.

We could see if there is some kind of pattern to the radii the effect occurs at.

Don't know how intersections of two different sources of the effect would behave.

 

[Questioner]

A different way of producing the same result,

Perhaps in a black hole's interior time is inverted and that produces tachyon radiation and that projects proximate to but outside the universe. That domain slows it down where it can/does reintegrate with the universe and delivers time-dilation (mass) directly.

Black hole size might relate to tachyon speed which would determine at what radii the reintegration and time-dilation occurs.
Size might also determine the quantity of tachyons.

 

[Questioner]

I would wonder why tachyons reintegrating with space-time didn’t emit photons,
but if in reintegration they were completely absorbed by space-time perhaps that is a contributor to dark energy?

 

[Questioner]

The idea that a black hole [non-gravitationally] 'muscularly flexes' space at some distant radius seems implausible.

So while tachyons might seem fanciful, using them as a mechanism in this speculation sounds more like most established physics seem to work to me.

By having the tachyons slightly removed from space-time it gives a rationale as to why the time-dilation/mass occurs at some long distances [radii] from the black hole itself.

That of course raises other questions.
What domain the tachyons move in and why do they slow down to luminal or sub-luminal speeds?
Perhaps close to space-time there is a kind abrading friction on the tachyons?
Since the tachyons are superluminal (and inverse in time) would they be close to massless like photons?

Then there is Inertia.

If these tachyons have a continuous path before they reintegrate with space-time that sounds like some kind of inertia. Time inverse inertia? Most physics equations are time invertible even if that's not the case with experiential physics.

It seems to me if if reintegration happens from some parallel domain the parallel inertia would carry on into space-time and 'kick' any time-dilation/mass outward from any point of reintegration. The DM mass effect though seems generally stationary. Maybe because inverse time inertia it doesn't carry on in an obvious way as it changes to forward time? <shrug>

Does matterless mass disapate? If so it would need continual refreshment from the black hole tachyon stream.

Maybe that is where the time inverse inertia gets used? That as time flips forward (or stalls) the inertia pushes inward? (against disapation?) It shepherds the mass close to stationary?

I wonder if there would be any temperature difference where the tachyons reintegrate? Would it be super cold like the event horizon of a black hole?

 

[Questioner]

If a tachyon re-emerges where some particle of matter is maybe that would 'explain' some of those crazy high energy cosmic rays.

What about tachyons hitting stars?
Would any effect be lost in stellar 'noise'?

Would matterless mass be useful in star formation?
Would star formation favor certain radii from a black hole?

Why haven't we seen 'evidence' of unexplained collisions with emerging tachyons?

If we are too close to be at a re-emergent radius would we see evidence of any abrasion/friction interactions with proximate transiting tachyons?

 

[husserl]

Here's a set of testable hypotheses about dark matter for you.

The “second” is a normalization unit for time, and the normalization factor used to convert unnormalized time into seconds is: 1/(d_c x t_c), where d_c is the constant distance light travels in a second and t_c, which asymptotically approaches zero, is the time experienced by light in a vacuum during that second.

• This definition of is consistent with the accepted understanding of relativistic phenomena approaching light-speed, and it is understandable that human observers (i.e. scientists) have inadvertently normalized against light because that is the limitation of their perception.
• The normalization factor would explain the observed phenomenon that, when measured with seconds, nothing can exceed the speed of light. It is a mathematical consequence of normalization itself and does not imply that faster-than-light movement is impossible.
• If observations of the distribution of dark matter in the universe were calculated using seconds and dark matter were perfectly correlated with unnormalized time, then the observed distribution of dark matter would be uniform everywhere as a mathematical consequence.

Applying this normalization factor to Einstein’s formula for mass-energy conversion, E = mc^2, and solving for t yields: t = (d_c^3 / c*) x sqrt(m/E) where c* is the unnormalized speed of light, which asymptotically converges to infinity.

• This formula can be interpreted as the time experienced by a cube filled with light during a second adjusted by a factor of the mass-energy ratio of the inertial frame, and the cubic term implies the use of a three-dimensional coordinate system upon which to map that mass and energy.
• If light experiences more time when passing by massive objects and light must maintain its angular momentum (i.e. always travel d_c in a second), then the light must curve to form an arc that intercepts its straight-line path. The curvature of this arc can be expressed in terms of its localized and unnormalized speed and the unnormalized speed of light in a vacuum. This equation predicts – and could be verified against – the curvature of light used to confirm the Theory of General Relativity, without any prior knowledge of how physicists arrived at that theory.
• If dark matter were perfectly correlated with unnormalized time, then this equation would provide an analytical solution that should match current observations of dark matter that have been transposed from four-dimensional space-time to a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate grid and adjusted for time normalization.
• Other tests of this hypothesis abound because this formula suggests that, by substituting unnormalized time for seconds into any formula of the Standard Model, one could arrive at identical solutions for phenomena that previously required the use of space-time as a concept.

I may not be a physicist, but I am an adherent of the scientific method. I recognize that the formula I am providing to you as part of these hypotheses will be hard to swallow because it suggests that gravitational effects do not imply distortions in time, and that unnormalized time (i.e. what we have observed as dark matter, but this hypothesis suggests has been measured incorrectly) may actually be the source of effects we have previously understood to be gravity and other forces.

Under such a hypothesis, blackholes are characterized as being areas of infinite (but not uniformly infinite) unnormalized time. Because we have extinguished the speed-of-light as a universal maximum, we can consider a far simpler explanation for quantum superposition: when a particle moves faster than the speed of light between point A and point B and then back to point A, it will appear as being in multiple places at once before light catches up to the observer. And quantum gravitational effects would be due to unnormalized time as well.

As scientists, our job when confronted with verifiable hypotheses that have explanatory and empirical weight (and both of those are substantial in this case) is to be open to the possibility that our understanding has been incomplete, to test those hypotheses, and to grow collectively from the results. If you are able to verify them, I would have additional model predictions that I could share, and verification should be quick for anyone with a graduate background in physics, which I do not.

 

[Questioner]

Further speculation,

As to tachyon delivered [matterless] mass,
my thought is it disapates (evens out) because matter mass doesn't leave a trailing wake of mass in its path.

So there is a 'halo' of sorts,
a 'glow' of radiated tachyons
at some distance from black holes.
Like a fine continuous 'mist' of tachyons.

It may be we exist on (in?) the luminal to sub-luminal side of space-time and tachyons happen/exist on the superluminal side of space-time.
So when they re-emerge they are byenlarge totally absorbed by space-time.

Strange thought,
What if matter mass itself is from tachyons, but they are so proximate to the matter it is smoothly measurable from their centers' of gravity?

With black hole tachyons they are significantly dissociated (dislodged?) from space-time due to much higher speeds that the effects of only become apparent when they re-emerge.

 

[Questioner]

Here's a set of testable hypotheses about dark matter for you.

The “second” is a normalization unit for time, and the normalization factor used to convert unnormalized time into seconds is: 1/(d_c x t_c), where d_c is the constant distance light travels in a second and t_c, which asymptotically approaches zero, is the time experienced by light in a vacuum during that second.

• This definition of is consistent with the accepted understanding of relativistic phenomena approaching light-speed, and it is understandable that human observers (i.e. scientists) have inadvertently normalized against light because that is the limitation of their perception.
• The normalization factor would explain the observed phenomenon that, when measured with seconds, nothing can exceed the speed of light. It is a mathematical consequence of normalization itself and does not imply that faster-than-light movement is impossible.
• If observations of the distribution of dark matter in the universe were calculated using seconds and dark matter were perfectly correlated with unnormalized time, then the observed distribution of dark matter would be uniform everywhere as a mathematical consequence.

Applying this normalization factor to Einstein’s formula for mass-energy conversion, E = mc^2, and solving for t yields: t = (d_c^3 / c*) x sqrt(m/E) where c* is the unnormalized speed of light, which asymptotically converges to infinity.

• This formula can be interpreted as the time experienced by a cube filled with light during a second adjusted by a factor of the mass-energy ratio of the inertial frame, and the cubic term implies the use of a three-dimensional coordinate system upon which to map that mass and energy.
• If light experiences more time when passing by massive objects and light must maintain its angular momentum (i.e. always travel d_c in a second), then the light must curve to form an arc that intercepts its straight-line path. The curvature of this arc can be expressed in terms of its localized and unnormalized speed and the unnormalized speed of light in a vacuum. This equation predicts – and could be verified against – the curvature of light used to confirm the Theory of General Relativity, without any prior knowledge of how physicists arrived at that theory.
• If dark matter were perfectly correlated with unnormalized time, then this equation would provide an analytical solution that should match current observations of dark matter that have been transposed from four-dimensional space-time to a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate grid and adjusted for time normalization.
• Other tests of this hypothesis abound because this formula suggests that, by substituting unnormalized time for seconds into any formula of the Standard Model, one could arrive at identical solutions for phenomena that previously required the use of space-time as a concept.

I may not be a physicist, but I am an adherent of the scientific method. I recognize that the formula I am providing to you as part of these hypotheses will be hard to swallow because it suggests that gravitational effects do not imply distortions in time, and that unnormalized time (i.e. what we have observed as dark matter, but this hypothesis suggests has been measured incorrectly) may actually be the source of effects we have previously understood to be gravity and other forces.

Under such a hypothesis, blackholes are characterized as being areas of infinite (but not uniformly infinite) unnormalized time. Because we have extinguished the speed-of-light as a universal maximum, we can consider a far simpler explanation for quantum superposition: when a particle moves faster than the speed of light between point A and point B and then back to point A, it will appear as being in multiple places at once before light catches up to the observer. And quantum gravitational effects would be due to unnormalized time as well.

As scientists, our job when confronted with verifiable hypotheses that have explanatory and empirical weight (and both of those are substantial in this case) is to be open to the possibility that our understanding has been incomplete, to test those hypotheses, and to grow collectively from the results. If you are able to verify them, I would have additional model predictions that I could share, and verification should be quick for anyone with a graduate background in physics, which I do not.

Maybe there is a way of quantifying time speed that makes sense and is calculable with equations,
but you are getting way over my head,
so i will leave it to serious physicists & mathematicians to cover that.

If it does work as some kind of systematic explanation one expect (hope) for that.

 

[Questioner]

Maybe there is some higher dimensional loss factor of tachyons (force?) to account for and that might 'explain' the weakness of mass/gravity as a force?