'Dark matter' is Provably Wrong.

[Questioner]

'Dark matter' is Provably Wrong.

If one thinks about it almost all galaxies behave rotationally differently than one would expect from standard gravity.
In the Solar system Mercury orbits every 88 days, while the outer planets take hundreds of Earth years.
That entails very different Rotations Per Period (of time) (RPP).
Looking at the Gaia data graphics (available on line) the Milkyway galaxy seems to rotate like a wobbly CD,
in other words, unexpectedly all at about the same RPP.
The inner galactic stars are orbiting too slowly & the outer galactic stars are orbiting too fast, when compared to our Solar system.
So if one created a 'faucet washer' shape of gravitational attraction it would pull those inner stars out & the outer stars in which would seem to account for the unexpected gravitational behavior.*
The ONLY reason to hypothesize this matter is to contrive gravity to explain observed movement.
So what is wrong with hypothesizing that some kind of matter & its mass in a 'faucet washer' shape is causing this?

A lot.

A ridiculous lot.

This hypothesized matter has NO radiant properties.
This hypothetical matter must be distributed with butter cream uniformity, because otherwise stars & planets would fall into the gravity 'gutters' caused by its lumps & clumps where we could virtually 'see' it.
So we must be swimming through it with every single move we make, every breath we take.
This hypothesized matter hovers in fixed forms around/within galaxies without good explanations for maintaining these artificial forms that don't respond expectedly to the established laws of physics.
**

1) First & worst problem,
Hypothesized 'dark matter' would have self-contradicting responses to gravity.

At the outer edge of this shape of matter it has all this hypothesized matter and its huge gravity on one side, & nothing but a few stray stars on the other, yet even over the billions of years of the lifetime of a galaxy it doesn't migrate inward under gravity's influence. It is immune to gravity there.

In the middle of this shape of hypothesized matter, where we are, it doesn't pile up around stars & planets & amplify their gravites, so it is immune to gravity there as well.

How could something that is in space-time not be forced to follow the fundamental curvatures of that space-time?
I guess that is another of its magical properties?

Now it contradicts with itself.
When a galaxy orbits another galaxy following the curvature of gravity this hypothesized matter follows THAT curvature of gravity.

That is just absurd.

It only follows/tracks exo-galactic gravity?
Selective gravity?
That is nonsensical.
That is virtual proof of fallacy.


2) Second problem,
The central black hole of a galaxy is in the center of the hole, the void in the hypothesized matter.
When a galaxy orbits another galaxy all this stays relatively concentric.
The only way to keep that order with this hypothesized matter is to

require a whole new law of physics(!?!),

namely the mutual repulsion between black holes & dark matter.

I am incredulous.

3) Third problem,
The measured data from almost every single galaxy out there demands a quantity of hypothesized matter that is in EXACT proportionality with the size of the central black hole of a given galaxy.
One would expect that this hypothesized matter would be independent of the mass of a given central black hole.
Sometimes there would be measurably proportionately more 'dark matter' than the central black hole in a particular galaxy & less in another.
To me this says what is going on is related to some kind of gravitational effect related directly to the central black hole & NOT this silly 'dark matter' and its artificial 'halos' @@.

I am struck by the artificial configurations the hypothetical matter is supposed to ridgidly hold on to without being responsive to the actual events & goings on of real galaxies. Like its inertia & gravity responses are just something to be ignored by trala academics.
What kind of physics is that? It's not.

And this nonsense has been profered for 80 dang years, by people who claim to be very intelligent & scientifically scruptulous? What a sad state of affairs.

*Note, in an elliptical/spherical galaxy it would be in the form of a filled sphere with a hollowed out spherical hole at its center.

**For those who might suggest that this hypothesized matter is in orbit around the central black hole in a disk galaxy, how would that even be possible in an elliptical/spherical galaxy? It wouldn't.

...
Evolution doesn't favor intelligence,
evolution favors the appearance/pretense of intelligence for social influence.
The human brain's primary utility is for social leverage.
That is where the biggest bang payoff is for the buck.
Any produced intelligence is an accidental byproduct.

 

[Ed Stauffer]

1) why isn’t all the water in the world in the ocean. It is the probably the same with dark matter. It condenses, evaporates and circulates. There can be lakes, oceans and streams between the two. The galactic halo is like moisture in the air around the planet not identical everywhere but the average is pretty uniform and it isn’t exactly the same in one place all of the time.
2) Dark Matter is the fabric of spacetime, not in spacetime so as you pointed out we are swimming in it without actually interacting withit
3) When the glass is full if you put more into it it just overflows to the next deepest gravity well. If you make the glass bigger with more Baryonic Matter it holds more dark matter. If something comes by with a deeper gravity well you may loose some out of yours but more will be coming from another overflowing gravity well. There are multiple examples of these streams running from one galaxy to another. The solar system is actually passing through one at this time, the S1 dark matter stream.

 

[Questioner]

1) why isn’t all the water in the world in the ocean. It is the probably the same with dark matter. It condenses, evaporates and circulates. There can be lakes, oceans and streams between the two. The galactic halo is like moisture in the air around the planet not identical everywhere but the average is pretty uniform and it isn’t exactly the same in one place all of the time.
2) Dark Matter is the fabric of spacetime, not in spacetime so as you pointed out we are swimming in it without actually interacting withit
3) When the glass is full if you put more into it it just overflows to the next deepest gravity well. If you make the glass bigger with more Baryonic Matter it holds more dark matter. If something comes by with a deeper gravity well you may loose some out of yours but more will be coming from another overflowing gravity well. There are multiple examples of these streams running from one galaxy to another. The solar system is actually passing through one at this time, the S1 dark matter stream.

"Dark Matter is the fabric of spacetime,.."
Wouldn't that essentially mean any part we can distinguish from context is in fact gravity?

Water on the Earth is wherever it is due to various physics and fields of containent.
What exactly is/are the field(s) of containent for DM?
What are the forces/causes of its movement and the 'topography' for its flows and arrests/pauses?

 

[Atlan0001]

Dark matter, if it really exists as matter, is outside of the observable universe's observable spacetime from the Earth. Obviously outside!

 

[rankin]

'Dark matter' is Provably Wrong.

If one thinks about it almost all galaxies behave rotationally differently than one would expect from standard gravity.
In the Solar system Mercury orbits every 88 days, while the outer planets take hundreds of Earth years.
That entails very different Rotations Per Period (of time) (RPP).
Looking at the Gaia data graphics (available on line) the Milkyway galaxy seems to rotate like a wobbly CD,
in other words, unexpectedly all at about the same RPP.
The inner galactic stars are orbiting too slowly & the outer galactic stars are orbiting too fast, when compared to our Solar system.
So if one created a 'faucet washer' shape of gravitational attraction it would pull those inner stars out & the outer stars in which would seem to account for the unexpected gravitational behavior.*
The ONLY reason to hypothesize this matter is to contrive gravity to explain observed movement.
So what is wrong with hypothesizing that some kind of matter & its mass in a 'faucet washer' shape is causing this?

A lot.

A ridiculous lot.

This hypothesized matter has NO radiant properties.
This hypothetical matter must be distributed with butter cream uniformity, because otherwise stars & planets would fall into the gravity 'gutters' caused by its lumps & clumps where we could virtually 'see' it.
So we must be swimming through it with every single move we make, every breath we take.
This hypothesized matter hovers in fixed forms around/within galaxies without good explanations for maintaining these artificial forms that don't respond expectedly to the established laws of physics.
**

1) First & worst problem,
Hypothesized 'dark matter' would have self-contradicting responses to gravity.

At the outer edge of this shape of matter it has all this hypothesized matter and its huge gravity on one side, & nothing but a few stray stars on the other, yet even over the billions of years of the lifetime of a galaxy it doesn't migrate inward under gravity's influence. It is immune to gravity there.

In the middle of this shape of hypothesized matter, where we are, it doesn't pile up around stars & planets & amplify their gravites, so it is immune to gravity there as well.

How could something that is in space-time not be forced to follow the fundamental curvatures of that space-time?
I guess that is another of its magical properties?

Now it contradicts with itself.
When a galaxy orbits another galaxy following the curvature of gravity this hypothesized matter follows THAT curvature of gravity.

That is just absurd.

It only follows/tracks exo-galactic gravity?
Selective gravity?
That is nonsensical.
That is virtual proof of fallacy.


2) Second problem,
The central black hole of a galaxy is in the center of the hole, the void in the hypothesized matter.
When a galaxy orbits another galaxy all this stays relatively concentric.
The only way to keep that order with this hypothesized matter is to

require a whole new law of physics(!?!),

namely the mutual repulsion between black holes & dark matter.

I am incredulous.

3) Third problem,
The measured data from almost every single galaxy out there demands a quantity of hypothesized matter that is in EXACT proportionality with the size of the central black hole of a given galaxy.
One would expect that this hypothesized matter would be independent of the mass of a given central black hole.
Sometimes there would be measurably proportionately more 'dark matter' than the central black hole in a particular galaxy & less in another.
To me this says what is going on is related to some kind of gravitational effect related directly to the central black hole & NOT this silly 'dark matter' and its artificial 'halos' @@.

I am struck by the artificial configurations the hypothetical matter is supposed to ridgidly hold on to without being responsive to the actual events & goings on of real galaxies. Like its inertia & gravity responses are just something to be ignored by trala academics.
What kind of physics is that? It's not.

And this nonsense has been profered for 80 dang years, by people who claim to be very intelligent & scientifically scruptulous? What a sad state of affairs.

*Note, in an elliptical/spherical galaxy it would be in the form of a filled sphere with a hollowed out spherical hole at its center.

**For those who might suggest that this hypothesized matter is in orbit around the central black hole in a disk galaxy, how would that even be possible in an elliptical/spherical galaxy? It wouldn't.

...
Evolution doesn't favor intelligence,
evolution favors the appearance/pretense of intelligence for social influence.
The human brain's primary utility is for social leverage.
That is where the biggest bang payoff is for the buck.
Any produced intelligence is an accidental byproduct.

Your argument seems to hold substance and value. Let me suggest a proposal;
Replace dark matter with a halo further out and the role of the halo would be to produce particles of quantized space. The particles would be allowed to go in any direction. Those going inward will have the same properties as DM including the ability to move mass as they transit. Another property of Dark Matter. They would be well distributed as the halo does not have any holes or vacuums.
Matter can be considered to be absorbing space giving the impression of being the opposite of Dark Energy.
Most of these ideas are not mind. Someone else has thought up of them before. With time they were left to disintegrate in te heap of time.
good luck,

 

[Atlan0001]

Hmmm! The inner to outer rims of the galaxy may travel in independent to near independent latitudinal line-tracks of near independent to independent space much straighter in individual orbital tracks than the curvatures observed and would seem to have them. Thus less to almost no sideways motion . . . less to no centrifugal or centripetal force for the speed in the tracks.

The orbital space may be observed bent around the center, but the orbital track may be straight enough in the track to prevent pulling or throwing out of track. Simply a different space (different more independent lines of space altogether, horizontally layering)! Cause, maybe! A mixture -- rather than gravity acting alone -- of fundamental forces grouped and raised, lifted, to the scale of galaxy. A galactic atom.

 

[Maxmeyes]

'Dark matter' is Provably Wrong.

If one thinks about it almost all galaxies behave rotationally differently than one would expect from standard gravity.
In the Solar system Mercury orbits every 88 days, while the outer planets take hundreds of Earth years.
That entails very different Rotations Per Period (of time) (RPP).
Looking at the Gaia data graphics (available on line) the Milkyway galaxy seems to rotate like a wobbly CD,
in other words, unexpectedly all at about the same RPP.
The inner galactic stars are orbiting too slowly & the outer galactic stars are orbiting too fast, when compared to our Solar system.
So if one created a 'faucet washer' shape of gravitational attraction it would pull those inner stars out & the outer stars in which would seem to account for the unexpected gravitational behavior.*
The ONLY reason to hypothesize this matter is to contrive gravity to explain observed movement.
So what is wrong with hypothesizing that some kind of matter & its mass in a 'faucet washer' shape is causing this?

A lot.

A ridiculous lot.

This hypothesized matter has NO radiant properties.
This hypothetical matter must be distributed with butter cream uniformity, because otherwise stars & planets would fall into the gravity 'gutters' caused by its lumps & clumps where we could virtually 'see' it.
So we must be swimming through it with every single move we make, every breath we take.
This hypothesized matter hovers in fixed forms around/within galaxies without good explanations for maintaining these artificial forms that don't respond expectedly to the established laws of physics.
**

1) First & worst problem,
Hypothesized 'dark matter' would have self-contradicting responses to gravity.

At the outer edge of this shape of matter it has all this hypothesized matter and its huge gravity on one side, & nothing but a few stray stars on the other, yet even over the billions of years of the lifetime of a galaxy it doesn't migrate inward under gravity's influence. It is immune to gravity there.

In the middle of this shape of hypothesized matter, where we are, it doesn't pile up around stars & planets & amplify their gravites, so it is immune to gravity there as well.

How could something that is in space-time not be forced to follow the fundamental curvatures of that space-time?
I guess that is another of its magical properties?

Now it contradicts with itself.
When a galaxy orbits another galaxy following the curvature of gravity this hypothesized matter follows THAT curvature of gravity.

That is just absurd.

It only follows/tracks exo-galactic gravity?
Selective gravity?
That is nonsensical.
That is virtual proof of fallacy.


2) Second problem,
The central black hole of a galaxy is in the center of the hole, the void in the hypothesized matter.
When a galaxy orbits another galaxy all this stays relatively concentric.
The only way to keep that order with this hypothesized matter is to

require a whole new law of physics(!?!),

namely the mutual repulsion between black holes & dark matter.

I am incredulous.

3) Third problem,
The measured data from almost every single galaxy out there demands a quantity of hypothesized matter that is in EXACT proportionality with the size of the central black hole of a given galaxy.
One would expect that this hypothesized matter would be independent of the mass of a given central black hole.
Sometimes there would be measurably proportionately more 'dark matter' than the central black hole in a particular galaxy & less in another.
To me this says what is going on is related to some kind of gravitational effect related directly to the central black hole & NOT this silly 'dark matter' and its artificial 'halos' @@.

I am struck by the artificial configurations the hypothetical matter is supposed to ridgidly hold on to without being responsive to the actual events & goings on of real galaxies. Like its inertia & gravity responses are just something to be ignored by trala academics.
What kind of physics is that? It's not.

And this nonsense has been profered for 80 dang years, by people who claim to be very intelligent & scientifically scruptulous? What a sad state of affairs.

*Note, in an elliptical/spherical galaxy it would be in the form of a filled sphere with a hollowed out spherical hole at its center.

**For those who might suggest that this hypothesized matter is in orbit around the central black hole in a disk galaxy, how would that even be possible in an elliptical/spherical galaxy? It wouldn't.

...
Evolution doesn't favor intelligence,
evolution favors the appearance/pretense of intelligence for social influence.
The human brain's primary utility is for social leverage.
That is where the biggest bang payoff is for the buck.
Any produced intelligence is an accidental byproduct.

In 2018 in The Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society it was announced that the outer rim of all disc galaxies rotate about one every billion years, not matter their size or mass. Why would every disc galaxy rotate at the same rate? Such a fundamental feature of disc galaxies implies there is no dark matter interacting with normal matter, otherwise the rotation rates would be affected by the size and mass of the galaxy.
What is more likely is that we don't have a good grasp of the energy density of the space around us. We don't even have a good understanding of vacuum energy, with one method of calculation saying it is 10(−9) joules per cubit meter, and another calculation lists it at 10(113) joules per cubic meter. Since mass and energy are the same thing, the total mass of a galaxy is not just the physical matter we can see but the energy in that volume of space the galaxy occupies. It's my contention that dark matter is not something exotic and mysterious, it is just the energy of a body in motion coupled with the energy (mass) density of the countless high and low energy waves in every inch of space, with some measure of vacuum energy thrown in.

 

[rankin]

'Dark matter' is Provably Wrong.

If one thinks about it almost all galaxies behave rotationally differently than one would expect from standard gravity.
In the Solar system Mercury orbits every 88 days, while the outer planets take hundreds of Earth years.
That entails very different Rotations Per Period (of time) (RPP).
Looking at the Gaia data graphics (available on line) the Milkyway galaxy seems to rotate like a wobbly CD,
in other words, unexpectedly all at about the same RPP.
The inner galactic stars are orbiting too slowly & the outer galactic stars are orbiting too fast, when compared to our Solar system.
So if one created a 'faucet washer' shape of gravitational attraction it would pull those inner stars out & the outer stars in which would seem to account for the unexpected gravitational behavior.*
The ONLY reason to hypothesize this matter is to contrive gravity to explain observed movement.
So what is wrong with hypothesizing that some kind of matter & its mass in a 'faucet washer' shape is causing this?

A lot.

A ridiculous lot.

This hypothesized matter has NO radiant properties.
This hypothetical matter must be distributed with butter cream uniformity, because otherwise stars & planets would fall into the gravity 'gutters' caused by its lumps & clumps where we could virtually 'see' it.
So we must be swimming through it with every single move we make, every breath we take.
This hypothesized matter hovers in fixed forms around/within galaxies without good explanations for maintaining these artificial forms that don't respond expectedly to the established laws of physics.
**

1) First & worst problem,
Hypothesized 'dark matter' would have self-contradicting responses to gravity.

At the outer edge of this shape of matter it has all this hypothesized matter and its huge gravity on one side, & nothing but a few stray stars on the other, yet even over the billions of years of the lifetime of a galaxy it doesn't migrate inward under gravity's influence. It is immune to gravity there.

In the middle of this shape of hypothesized matter, where we are, it doesn't pile up around stars & planets & amplify their gravites, so it is immune to gravity there as well.

How could something that is in space-time not be forced to follow the fundamental curvatures of that space-time?
I guess that is another of its magical properties?

Now it contradicts with itself.
When a galaxy orbits another galaxy following the curvature of gravity this hypothesized matter follows THAT curvature of gravity.

That is just absurd.

It only follows/tracks exo-galactic gravity?
Selective gravity?
That is nonsensical.
That is virtual proof of fallacy.


2) Second problem,
The central black hole of a galaxy is in the center of the hole, the void in the hypothesized matter.
When a galaxy orbits another galaxy all this stays relatively concentric.
The only way to keep that order with this hypothesized matter is to

require a whole new law of physics(!?!),

namely the mutual repulsion between black holes & dark matter.

I am incredulous.

3) Third problem,
The measured data from almost every single galaxy out there demands a quantity of hypothesized matter that is in EXACT proportionality with the size of the central black hole of a given galaxy.
One would expect that this hypothesized matter would be independent of the mass of a given central black hole.
Sometimes there would be measurably proportionately more 'dark matter' than the central black hole in a particular galaxy & less in another.
To me this says what is going on is related to some kind of gravitational effect related directly to the central black hole & NOT this silly 'dark matter' and its artificial 'halos' @@.

I am struck by the artificial configurations the hypothetical matter is supposed to ridgidly hold on to without being responsive to the actual events & goings on of real galaxies. Like its inertia & gravity responses are just something to be ignored by trala academics.
What kind of physics is that? It's not.

And this nonsense has been profered for 80 dang years, by people who claim to be very intelligent & scientifically scruptulous? What a sad state of affairs.

*Note, in an elliptical/spherical galaxy it would be in the form of a filled sphere with a hollowed out spherical hole at its center.

**For those who might suggest that this hypothesized matter is in orbit around the central black hole in a disk galaxy, how would that even be possible in an elliptical/spherical galaxy? It wouldn't.

...
Evolution doesn't favor intelligence,
evolution favors the appearance/pretense of intelligence for social influence.
The human brain's primary utility is for social leverage.
That is where the biggest bang payoff is for the buck.
Any produced intelligence is an accidental byproduct.

Unravel the knot you find in cosmology by creating a halo around the MW, From this halo particles of space will be created and expelled.
The halo will provide the necessary particles for the growth of the universe, In addition it will provide the necessary particles of space that matter consumes to create mass. Due to its location and rate of space creation it will support the linear speed curve that dark space is being blamed for.

Let me know what you think

 

[Abe53]

Good evening Questioner and Rankin, Darn it, you have done it!
Your thoughts have goaded me to finally put forth my ideas on Dark Matter and Dark Energy. As Questioner questioned the 80 years of not finding these, I thought of what could replace such.
We have too little gravity from observable mass to hold galaxies together.
So science invents Dark Matter which needs to be about 20x observable mass.
Now we see galaxies speeding apart quicker than they should, so scientists invent Dark Energy to push them away, at another multiple of observable energy.
How about another strange force? None stranger than Quantum Entanglement.
Certain pairs of particles created together seem to retain connection to each other, call it an affinity. Could this extend to an attraction? Since such attraction would only show at relatively close quarters, herding only the stars in a galaxy, it would leave other galaxies alone to move away quicker.
A good theory should propose an experiment to provide proof.
Galaxies merging or moving through one another should in my theory each keep together slightly better than expected by their observed mass. Could JWST and Hubble perhaps oblige?

 

[finiter]

Dark matter is provably wrong. Solar system (moving at approximately 220 Km/s) has no dark matter. The ordinary matter in it is enough to keep it together. But Milkyway galaxy (moving at approximately 600Km/s) does not contain enough matter, compared to Solar system. The matter required is nearly 7 times the present estimate, as Vera Rubin has pointed out.
Here, I propose speed-dependent gravity. At present, we assume that speed of a system has no particular role in the system. Is that correct? Simple logic implies that more the speed, the more should be the force, or gravity, towards its center. So, G should be proportional to the square of the speed. So, G of Milkyway should be approximately 7 times higher. Gravity depends on GM. That means, matter required is only 1/7 of what is required based on universal G. So, there is no dark matter. Very simple explanation.

 

[billslugg]

The Solar System has a much larger average density than the Milky Way. They cannot be compared in reference to DM. DM can dominate the Milky Way rotation periods because the enormous distance between stars dilutes the normal matter density of the Milky Way such that DM can predominate. In the Solar System, the situation is the opposite. We have so incredibly much normal matter packed into the Solar System that its average density far outweighs DM. In fact, in the volume of the Solar System inside Earth's orbit, there is but enough DM to equal the mass of an asteroid of radius 20m. DM plays no significant role in such high density volumes as the Solar System.

 

[Questioner]

The Solar System has a much larger average density than the Milky Way. They cannot be compared in reference to DM. DM can dominate the Milky Way rotation periods because the enormous distance between stars dilutes the normal matter density of the Milky Way such that DM can predominate. In the Solar System, the situation is the opposite. We have so incredibly much normal matter packed into the Solar System that its average density far outweighs DM. In fact, in the volume of the Solar System inside Earth's orbit, there is but enough DM to equal the mass of an asteroid of radius 20m. DM plays no significant role in such high density volumes as the Solar System.

In Omega Centauri globular cluster do those stars show increased gravity due to an aggregation of DM?

I think not.

 

[billslugg]

This article discusses both of the methods that have been used to determine there is a concentration of DM in Omega Centauri. Where are the defects in this argument?

 

[Questioner]

Because if hypothetical DM responds to gravity it will migrate around those stars.

That will change their surrounding gravity wells.

That will cause those stars to interact gravitationally differently than not.

If there is no difference than expected DM free gravity then that would prove DM IS immune to gravity at the very least.

 

[Questioner]

Another thing,
if DM particles are zooming through everything around us,
think about the gravitational stress that puts on atoms, molecules and structure everywhere.
That would mean many chemical reactions, mircrofractures of structure would be as a direct result of DM actions.

 

[billslugg]

You are correct in saying that the DM in our solar system should affect the movement of planets and it does. The problem is that the amount of DM is too small to cause a measurable effect.

And, yes, the atoms and molecules around us react to the DM particles going through us. However, the amount of DM is too small to make a measurable efftct.

 

[Atlan0001]

You are correct in saying that the DM in our solar system should affect the movement of planets and it does. The problem is that the amount of DM is too small to cause a measurable effect.

And, yes, the atoms and molecules around us react to the DM particles going through us. However, the amount of DM is too small to make a measurable efftct.

The amount of neutrinos going through us is too small to make a measurable effect?

Neutrino - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I suppose so locally, but galactic/intergalactic masses?

 

[billslugg]

Yes, although trillions of neutrinos pass through each person every second, they have no measurable effect on us. In one's lifetime one might react with two solar neutrinos. Their mass is very, very small, they don't amount to much. I am not aware of any effect that neutrinos have on orbits. There are theories that an as yet unobserved sterile neutrino is responsible for DM.

 

[Questioner]

DM's whole rationale is to have significant mass unlike nearly massless neutrinos.
That would have real observable repercussions.
Where are they?

I would like to see the mutual gravitational affects Omega Centauri cluster stars have on one another.
If that is identical to their intrinsic masses it shows DM does not respond to gravity which would show what nonsense DM is.

 

[finiter]

The Solar System has a much larger average density than the Milky Way. They cannot be compared in reference to DM. DM can dominate the Milky Way rotation periods because the enormous distance between stars dilutes the normal matter density of the Milky Way such that DM can predominate. In the Solar System, the situation is the opposite. We have so incredibly much normal matter packed into the Solar System that its average density far outweighs DM. In fact, in the volume of the Solar System inside Earth's orbit, there is but enough DM to equal the mass of an asteroid of radius 20m. DM plays no significant role in such high density volumes as the Solar System.

The Earth-moon system is denser than solar system. Solar system is denser than Milkyway. Milkyway is denser than the local galaxy-cluster. That is how matter remains packed in the universe. A similar pattern can be seen in their speeds also. Their speeds increase as their densities decrease. Naturally, it is their speeds that matter. The higher the speed, the higher the G, and the less amount of matter required for stability. That explains why a galaxy cluster is far less dense than Earth-moon system. It is just an alternate explanation.
There is no direct proof for the existence of DM. Your argument is based on the assumption that DM exists. DM may or may not exist; we have to consider both possibilities.

 

[billslugg]

If the speeds of visible matter were high enough to cause them to have enough excess mass to account for the observed gravitational effects then we would see everything out there traveling at close to the speed of light, but we don't.

 

[finiter]

If the speeds of visible matter were high enough to cause them to have enough excess mass to account for the observed gravitational effects then we would see everything out there traveling at close to the speed of light, but we don't.

I am not saying that speed is increasing the mass. I am only proposing that speed increases G. As GM is the factor that decides the gravitational force, a higher G requires lesser mass to create the same force. That proposal readily removes the need for DM in Milkyway.

 

[Questioner]

Gravity is mass. It's the redistribution of time speeds in space proximate to matter.

If by gravity you mean the aggregated mass of bodies more 'interior' in the galaxy you would have to explain why their aggregate or particular masses would increase.
That's a hard sale.

 

[Questioner]

I am not closed to the idea of existential (non-matter derived) gravity (redistribution of time speeds).
It could just exist semi-statically or be caused by some mechanism,
so details (why) are needed.

 

[Questioner]

Maybe gravity should be defined as the inertia bias created by an eccentric distribution (gradient) of time speeds. Thus far only demonstrable proximate to matter.

Isn't the mass created by a moving body focused on the leading edge of that body?

I wonder if the lateral mass of two bodies moving in parallel at high speeds are increased over their nominal/stationary masses.
Would their parallel paths converge any more than they would nominally?