Dark Matter Controversy: Unraveling the Cosmic Enigma

Oct 4, 2023
16
12
15
Visit site
Dark matter has long baffled scientists. It's believed to make up around 27% of the universe, yet we can't directly observe it, leading to a fascinating and controversial theory.

Standard Theory: Dark Matter Exists
The prevailing view is that dark matter is composed of elusive particles that don't interact with light or normal matter. This theory explains the observed gravitational effects on galaxies and galaxy clusters.

The Controversy Begins: Modified Gravity
Some scientists propose a different theory called Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). They suggest that instead of dark matter, our understanding of gravity needs a tweak. MOND can explain galactic motion without the need for invisible matter.

Galactic Rotation Curves
One key argument for MOND is the rotation curves of galaxies. In the standard theory, we'd expect to see a drop in orbital speed as you move away from a galaxy's center. But many galaxies have flat rotation curves, which MOND can explain.

Lensing Controversy
Gravitational lensing, the bending of light by massive objects, is often cited as evidence for dark matter. However, some argue that MOND can also explain lensing effects without needing dark matter.

Galaxy Clusters
Galaxy clusters are another piece of the puzzle. The standard theory relies on dark matter to explain their observed mass and gravitational effects. MOND supporters say a modified gravity theory can account for these too.

Cosmic Microwave Background
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) provides strong evidence for the standard theory. It's the afterglow of the Big Bang. Critics argue that alternative theories like MOND can potentially accommodate the CMB data.What's your take on the dark matter controversy?
 
i will speak only of effect observed in/with galaxies.

if gravity is defined as a distortion of space-time i hypothesize that what is observed is not actually gravity at all.

I propose that photons entangled with a star's interior elements radiate in all directions.
If they encounter stars, planets or dust they decohere.
Some of these entangled photons retain their entanglement as they come under the influence of a black hole.
In conjunction with time dilation near the event horizon they become prolongly fixed in their entangled state.
Some do eventually cross the event horizon,
but those photons just on either side of the event horizon go into orbit around it indefinitely.
This sustains the superposition relationship and that confers location ambiguity.
That spatial ambiguity works as the connector.
The relationship is both in the star's interior and at the event horizon of the black hole.

Since the central black hole of any galaxy has the largest event horizon this unseen connector is most pronouced with the center of each galaxy.

Imagine seeing space-time as a rubber sheet edge on.
For the inner stars this connector angles more 'downward' (more in the direction of standard gravitational warping).
For the outer stars the connector is more nearly parallel with space-time itself. So the effect is most dramatic for these outer stars,
but it isn't an effect of the shape/shaping of space-time.
It is more analogous to a tow line between boats that is below the waterline.
It is a 'spooky action at a distance'.

For any rotating outer star its axis of rotation lines up with the unseen connection.
This is where gravitationally weird effects may ensue around each of these rotating outer stars.
Due to frame dragging on the galactic outer side of the star it 'digs out' a crescent shaped gravity trough.
On the star's inner side a crescent shaped gravity 'mound' piles up. A region of negative gravity that repells mass.
The outer trough picks up light and bends it around likely passing it to the next trough and so on possibly causing the lensing effect.
This would make stable planetary orbits difficult to establish there.

It might even cause the outer trough to be gravitationally 'deeper' than the star's own gravity per its mass,
but that would have to be determined experimentally/observationally.

One could see if this effect happens between any sizable black hole and the stars reasonably near it.
In other words does the black hole seem more attractive to stars than its mass/gravity warrants.

This could explain why there is such a tight correlation between the amount of observed effect and the size of its central black hole in virtually every galaxy out there.

This would explain why the effect travels along with the galaxy without having to drag a lot of sloppy DM with it.
 
Odd thought,
if the gravity trough of an outer star is greater than its own gravity, maybe a planet could/would orbit inside the gravity trough itself,
always staying on the galactic outside of the star and never orbit the star at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rmuir98
The problem with 'dark matter' is that within a galaxy we see no evidence of it responding to gravity.

Both matter and antimatter respond to gravity.

The outer edge of DM doesn't migrate inward even under the influence of the DM's cloud/halo of gravity even over the billions of years of a galaxy's lifetime.

DM doesn't pile up around stars and planets and amplify their gravity.

DM isn't cascading into the central black hole of galaxies.

There is an unexpected tight correlation between the hypothized quantity of DM and the size of the central black hole of each galaxy.

"...recent studies have suggested a tight correlation between the masses of the black hole and the galaxy’s dark matter halo. "

Imo DM fails as a rational hypothesis to explain the observed effect in galaxies.

Further there may be other gravity curvature that cannot be associated with matter.

Relativity theory doesn't require matter to have gravity/curvature.
Schwarzschild & de Sitter space-times both have gravity/curvature without a single speck of matter yet are consistent with relativity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rmuir98
Dec 6, 2023
3
0
10
Visit site
One controversial viewpoint questions whether dark matter truly exists or if our understanding of gravity needs a fundamental reevaluation. Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) is one such alternative hypothesis that suggests modifying our understanding of gravity at large distances instead of invoking unseen, exotic matter. Advocates of MOND argue that it provides a simpler explanation for observed galactic rotation curves and gravitational interactions without the need for an elusive dark matter particle.
 
Apr 16, 2023
16
0
10
Visit site
A simple correlation exists between the amount of dark matter in a galaxy/cluster and the square of its speed. Solar system contains no dark matter. Taking it as the standard, calculate the square of the speed-ratio of the galaxy/cluster to the solar system. That gives the amount of dark matter. Speed dependent gravity can thus solve the problem.
 
Oct 2, 2023
4
0
10
Visit site
The problem with 'dark matter' is that within a galaxy we see no evidence of it responding to gravity.

Both matter and antimatter respond to gravity.

The outer edge of DM doesn't migrate inward even under the influence of the DM's cloud/halo of gravity even over the billions of years of a galaxy's lifetime.

DM doesn't pile up around stars and planets and amplify their gravity.

DM isn't cascading into the central black hole of galaxies.

There is an unexpected tight correlation between the hypothized quantity of DM and the size of the central black hole of each galaxy.

"...recent studies have suggested a tight correlation between the masses of the black hole and the galaxy’s dark matter halo. "

Imo DM fails as a rational hypothesis to explain the observed effect in galaxies.

Further there may be other gravity curvature that cannot be associated with matter.

Relativity theory doesn't require matter to have gravity/curvature.
Schwarzschild & de Sitter space-times both have gravity/curvature without a single speck of matter yet are consistent with relativity.
Yes i totally agree with you and it makes lots of sense, thank you.
 
Feb 8, 2020
28
0
4,530
Visit site
Yes, gravity G is a dark force of attraction but we need to show the direction mass attraction dark force G is pulling in.
Their are other dark massless forces that permeate a volume of space x,y,z that could be electrical and act in different right angle directions. if the universe is magnetised and polarised.
STEVENS DARK FORCES HYPOTHESIS

No dark matter or dark energy has been found in space as dark massless forces are needed to balance the WMAP results

1 The dark force of mass attraction G is the weakest in deep space volume x,y,z.

2 Electromagnetic dark matter magnoflux spin x,y inertia force of about 5G rotates galactic stars around a magnetic black hole hub

3. Electro-static repulsion of a near 25G dark energy force in z direction is responsible for expanding the universe as galactic stars are huge + charges and repel each other but the magnetic field is at right angles and spins the stars around a central magnetic hub commonly known as a blackhole.
 
Jan 28, 2023
96
11
535
Visit site
And the most reasonable explanation is that there is no mystical "dark matter", but more normal matter, but we (yet) cannot observe part of it, due to imperfections of the used devices (telescopes). There may be more than enough scattered matter, in the form of gas molecules and small dust particles, that are not dense enough to form visible clouds. They are far enough from the systems not to be "swept and cleaned" or condensed by the influence of the stars and planets orbiting the stars for billions of years. In this sense, the vacuum in the solar system, taking for example how many particles per cubic centimeter there are, may be cleaner than that in regions far enough away from regions of strong gravity. Maybe in intergalactic space many particles per cubic centimeter there are, may be cleaner than that in sufficiently distant regions of strong gravity. Maybe in intergalactic space.
 
Jan 28, 2023
96
11
535
Visit site
And the most reasonable explanation is that there is no mystical "dark matter", but more normal matter, but we (yet) cannot observe part of it, due to imperfections of the used devices (telescopes). There may be more than enough scattered matter, in the form of gas molecules and small dust particles, that are not dense enough to form visible clouds. They are far enough from the systems not to be "swept and cleaned" or condensed by the influence of the stars and planets orbiting the stars for billions of years. In this sense, the vacuum in the solar system, taking for example how many particles per cubic centimeter there are, may be cleaner than that in regions far enough away from regions of strong gravity. Maybe in intergalactic space
 
  • Like
Reactions: bolide
Feb 8, 2020
28
0
4,530
Visit site
George,
No good looking for dark matter what is needed is to look for the dark massless forces that are in an empty 3D volume of deep space and work out which direction x,y,z they are acting.
Problem is no fixed reference point in space. to measure from.
 
Jan 28, 2023
96
11
535
Visit site
Completely off!

Happy New Year! looks like you're already celebrating. I wanted to make a witty remark that I'm also celebrating and that the volume in my head is completely 2D right now.
/Sorry mods/ please keep this comment society showed for eternity/
 
Jan 2, 2024
87
9
35
Visit site
The problem with 'dark matter' is that within a galaxy we see no evidence of it responding to gravity.

Both matter and antimatter respond to gravity.

The outer edge of DM doesn't migrate inward even under the influence of the DM's cloud/halo of gravity even over the billions of years of a galaxy's lifetime.

DM doesn't pile up around stars and planets and amplify their gravity.

DM isn't cascading into the central black hole of galaxies.

There is an unexpected tight correlation between the hypothized quantity of DM and the size of the central black hole of each galaxy.

"...recent studies have suggested a tight correlation between the masses of the black hole and the galaxy’s dark matter halo. "

Imo DM fails as a rational hypothesis to explain the observed effect in galaxies.

Further there may be other gravity curvature that cannot be associated with matter.

Relativity theory doesn't require matter to have gravity/curvature.
Schwarzschild & de Sitter space-times both have gravity/curvature without a single speck of matter yet are consistent with relativity.
So, maybe we have it the wrong way - cause and effect. Maybe the universe has gravitational wells preceding matter; those wells then attract matter, and the shape/depth of such a well is determined by matter existing adjacently in a different universe. Perhaps along the lines of another 2-sphere adjacent/contiguous to our universe in a 3-sphere. Or similar.
 
So, maybe we have it the wrong way - cause and effect. Maybe the universe has gravitational wells preceding matter; those wells then attract matter, and the shape/depth of such a well is determined by matter existing adjacently in a different universe. Perhaps along the lines of another 2-sphere adjacent/contiguous to our universe in a 3-sphere. Or similar.
It's a possibility what we see is affected by the mass of matter in an immediately adjacent universe or
it could be simply existential matterless gravity in this universe.

Two other options for its failure to respond to gravity are
1) it is massed matter with zero inertia (which defies any conventional understanding)
or
2) DM has some kind of self attraction making it (a?) cohesive blob(s) so it doesn't get drawn eccentrically into other gravity fields.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gibsense
Apr 18, 2020
97
17
4,535
Visit site
A simple correlation exists between the amount of dark matter in a galaxy/cluster and the square of its speed. Solar system contains no dark matter. Taking it as the standard, calculate the square of the speed-ratio of the galaxy/cluster to the solar system. That gives the amount of dark matter. Speed dependent gravity can thus solve the problem.
"Speed" relative to what?
 
Apr 18, 2020
97
17
4,535
Visit site
So, maybe we have it the wrong way - cause and effect. Maybe the universe has gravitational wells preceding matter; those wells then attract matter, and the shape/depth of such a well is determined by matter existing adjacently in a different universe. Perhaps along the lines of another 2-sphere adjacent/contiguous to our universe in a 3-sphere. Or similar.
Except that "matter existing adjacently in a different universe" is an even worse kludge than "Dark Matter."
 
  • Like
Reactions: George²
Jan 28, 2023
96
11
535
Visit site
Dark Matter is this century's Ether.
There are still enough decades left of this century to be able to detect and define better than currently observed cases that cannot be explained by the mass of matter that is visible and calculated with the current capabilities of science and used for observation technical resources.
 
Feb 8, 2020
28
0
4,530
Visit site
Dark Matter is a fudge when it is the magnoflux 3D massless dark magnetic spin force that needs identifying.
However, this can only be measured in hind sight but should be constant in remote isolated volumes of deep space between galaxies.
It will not be a constant near magnetic hubs/blackholes and will vary greatly near large concentrations of matter or anti-matter.
 
Jan 12, 2024
29
2
35
Visit site
Odd thought,
if the gravity trough of an outer star is greater than its own gravity, maybe a planet could/would orbit inside the gravity trough itself,
always staying on the galactic outside of the star and never orbit the star at all.
Your thought is not odd. Consider a halo around a galaxy, which produces particles of space. Consider that gravity is created by the movement of space from either sinks or sources. The internal planets are sinks and the halo represents the source of space. From source to sink space partices move. Particles near the source will move at speeds faster than the sinks could probide. Is this what you meant. For naivete the particles near the source moving inward will be seen as propagated by non existing dark matter. How much money must we spend before we accept that dark matter is not going to appear. Einsteins theories only extend so far from the mass. Gravity cannot go forever, as it does not include source as a source of gravity. If you go to the other side of the halo you will notice space rushing outward. It will be added to extragalactic space.
That will be called dark energy. If you accept this, dark energy and dark matter have been shown to be the same thing. They have the same origin.
 
Feb 8, 2020
28
0
4,530
Visit site
No dark matter or dark energy has been found in space as dark massless forces are needed to balance the WMAP results
1 The dark force of mass attraction G is the weakest in deep space volume x,y,z.
2 Electromagnetic dark matter magnoflux spin x,y inertia force of about 6G rotates galactic stars around a magnetic black hole hub
3. Electro-static repel about 25G dark energy force in z direction is responsible for expanding the universe as stars are huge + charges.
 
Feb 8, 2020
28
0
4,530
Visit site
Having thought about the physicists requirement that fermions always have 1/2 spin integers I can now see that it is in fact 2.
So the magnoflux spin effect is 2pi in y direction when moving pi in the x direction resulting in a unit of magnoflux area of spinning inertia stuff. So will amend from the dark matter magnoflux force constant for the free space between galaxies from 6 to 6.28.