Dark matter 'clumps' found by tapping into Einstein's general relativity theory

Mar 8, 2022
104
6
585
"...the only way scientists can infer the presence of dark matter is by looking at the effect it has on "normal" matter via gravity."
What is seen is gravitational effects ONLY.
Relativity does NOT require matter to create/cause gravity/curvature.
Hypothesizing some form of matter confabulates something with absurd, impossible properties far beyond mere invisibility.
'Dark matter' is provably wrong.
 
I've written a paper that claims to show that dark energy is a characteristic of hydrogen. The same paper presents implications that dark matter is also diffuse hydrogen "clumping" due to the sixth-order nature of its intrinsic self repulsion balancing against gravity.
Still looking for an informed detailed opinion on that paper:
https://www.academia.edu/106245152/230826_Dark_Energy_Intrinsic_to_Atomic_Hydrogen_pdf
That text is not a peer reviewed paper so I doubt people interested in science would look it up (say, I wouldn't). If you are serious, try to submit it to a peer review journal, then you get the informed detailed feedback you want (and need).

Meanwhile, some basics: You can't use the same objects to explain the two different space expansion characteristics, or have matter emulate the expansion characteristic of potential energy (such as inflation or dark energy).

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology) for a description of what is observed and what a theory has to explain (and even better than LCDM to replace it).
 
Mar 8, 2022
104
6
585
Cold' like the near absolute zero of empty space?
These guys are mapping gravity on a relatively fie scale, P-E-R-I-O-D.
How in any way does that prove any kind of matter is involved at all?
It does not.
De Sitter & Schwarzschild space-times are both examples of relativity consistent space-times devoid of ANY matter yet abundant with gravity/curvature.
I have outlined that the nonsensical 'dark matter' has

self-contradicting responses to gravity.

A self-contradicting property with respect to a FUNDAMENTAL LAW of physics is
ABSURD!

It makes the hypothesis of 'dark matter'
intellectual trash. QED.

The article rejects your unquantified claim. The paper states clearly that it has successfully tested the CDM prediction of the LCDM theory, i.e. that dark matter not only exists but is as massive (slow moving, "cold") as the theory says.
 
Aug 24, 2023
7
1
15
That text is not a peer reviewed paper so I doubt people interested in science would look it up (say, I wouldn't). If you are serious, try to submit it to a peer review journal, then you get the informed detailed feedback you want (and need).

Meanwhile, some basics: You can't use the same objects to explain the two different space expansion characteristics, or have matter emulate the expansion characteristic of potential energy (such as inflation or dark energy).

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology) for a description of what is observed and what a theory has to explain (and even better than LCDM to replace it).
Thank you for your feedback.

I have submitted various versions of this paper 9 times to 5 different journals. All were rejected. The one line of feedback I got said I needed to provide more proof, - which is odd because I consider the paper a proof.

Four academics I contacted volunteered to do a brief review. General consensus was my paper can’t be right because it looks too classical. Still have no feedback as to what is fundamentally wrong with my approach. Would love to get closure one way or another but still need a competent reviewer with some time to spare.

I believe what I’ve come up with is just part of the explanation for cosmic expansion. The effectively electrostatic repulsion between hydrogen atoms is a potential energy driving expansion. The paper presents a result that is quantitative, arrived at via a few fully explained assumptions and calculations. If anything it is a boring analysis to review. On the other hand the implications could be viewed as outrageous.

Did look at the article on scale factor, and have seen it before. My view is that cosmology is still “the wild west”. Much is still speculative.

Given my situation, how would you suggest I find closure?