'Dark matter' is Provably Wrong.

[finiter]

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

The simplest explanation of gravity is that of Newton, where gravity is force, not mass. The amount of matter in Milkyway is found to be not enough to hold the galaxy together if we use the Newtonian law of gravity where G is universal. Naturally, it is suspected that there is DM in the galaxy. But a speed dependent gravitational constant (G proportional to square of the speed) removes the need for DM.
Whether Newton or Einstein provides the correct explanation of gravity is something that can be resolved only after our theoretical physics becomes complete in all respects. Till then it is an open question.

 

[billslugg]

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.

Me personally, I already know of a bunch of hard to detect particles that have mass. It's not that hard to envision another. DM is just one more of the usual.

We cannot detect DM in the Solar System because we only have a million tons or so. It's effects are dwarfed by the 10^27 tons in the Solar system. This is a ratio of 10^21, far beyond our ability to measure.

If the high recessional velocity of the far away galaxies causes their G to be less, then this would affect the stars near to the center as well as far away at the edge. This is not what we see.

If velocity determined G, then our orbit calculations here in the Solar System would be affected. Our Earth's speed through the Solar System of 30 km/s would be one fifth of the velocity of a star on the edge of a far away galaxy, about 130 km/s. We'd see the effects right here, but we don't.

 

[Questioner]

If DM responded to gravity it would aggregate around the mass of existing matter.
That would change the shape of space-time and be detectable as variant from empty space.

Instead it supposedly spreads itself absolutely evenly through vast empty space.

Seems like a bald contradiction to me.

 

[billslugg]

DM has a hard time aggregating since aggregation requires shedding of energy. The aggregated state of standing still is a lower energy configuration than a bunch of particles in orbit. The only way to shed the energy is by interacting with something and DM can't do that.

DM does, in fact, change the shape of space and time. We see it happening most everywhere we look. At least one galaxy, however, is seen not to need and DM as it has the normal velocity distribution.

DM might be spread throughout space, we have no way of telling.

 

[Questioner]

It's invisible in energy signature..
It's invisible in local gravity.
It's absolutely uniformly distributed
which makes it indistinguishable from not being there in the first place.

It sounds like endless weasel talk,
a confabulation of fantastic properties to force whatever is going on into 'physics' orthodoxy.

At such time as the grand gravity gradients ascribed to it are demonstrated not to be there it will be defunct as a hypothesis.

 

[billslugg]

It is not uniformly distributed. There are vast clouds of it here and there that bend the light coming from behind. A uniform distribution cannot do that.

 

[Helio]

DM is an observed phenomena. But it's not a direct observation since it is invisible, hence called "dark".

But it is observed, over and over, indirectly. It was about 90 years ago when Fritz Zwicky discovered that galaxies within a cluster were moving too fast, as if there was much more matter than could be found regardless of normal fudging of normal matter and energy.

But is wasn't until the 60's that galaxy rotation speeds were too fast to be normal. Seth Shostak, apparently, showed that the outer parts of galaxies were moving too fast.

But Vera Rubin, Ford and Freedman worked as a team demonstrating that the entire disks of spiral galaxies were moving as if there was a lot more gravity there to justify their very similar orbital rates.

It's no longer a question of if, but what?

This doesn't completely rule out a tweak in Newton's and Einstein's laws for gravity, but such attempts have come and failed. MOND was popular for a while, but it failed to perform across the board unless you included one important addition in some cases....Dark Matter. Adding DM to patch the MOND method is an example of a violation of Occam's Razor. It doesn't falsify MOND but "if you hear horse hoofs, think horses not unicorns."

 

[Questioner]

Additionally it doesn't perturb visible matter in its gravity wakes even though its whole rationale is to have significant mass.

DM must be perfectly isolated from anything else in the Universe & all it does beyond that is paint mass directly on space-time itself.

Existential gravity would more cleanly, elegantly describe what might be causing the observed effects,
without fiddling around with confabulated matter with a laundry lisr of bizarre properties.

I would venture it isn't gravity (distortions of space-time) at all but some kind of attraction or connection directly with black holes to stellar interiors that bypasses the surface of space-time, altogether.

Perhaps entangled photons from stars to the black holes that is made more tenacious by inverse time characteristics inside black holes.

 

[billslugg]

"perturb visible matter in its gravity wakes" - Q

Undefined terms "perturb visible matter", "gravity wakes".

Can't make sense of it.

 

[Questioner]

DM is purported to be all around (through) us. The particles of which have to have significant mass.
They have nothing to impede them.
Their gravity wakes that in all likelihood would vibrate visible matter can not be identified.

Oops! that would transfer heat.

This conjures something that is absolutely undetectable beyond existential gravity.

It's like attributing something to a ghost.

I have no experience with ghosts &/or DM so please pardon my skepticism.

 

[Questioner]

Outer Solar system moons are heated from gravity/tidal-forces which come directly from changing relationships to gravity,

but friction from unstoppable DM particles zooming their 'by definition' significant mass/gravity around doesn't exist?!?

You are talking about two mutually exclusive universes.

That mythical universe with DM is not this real universe we live in.

Dark matter is provably wrong,

pardon my arrogance but i do believe that covers it.

QED

 

[billslugg]

Moons are heated by tidal forces. The planet pulls harder on the nearer edge of the moon and the moon stretches. If the moon is rotating then it is alternately stretched and scrunched. This generates heat.

A dark matter particle passing through us moves us too, but the amount is intinitesmal. There is not enough dark matter to be detected unless you are measuring a galaxy full. A Solar System full of dark matter does not contain enough Dark Matter to measure its effect on any planet. It's there just like you say, but it is too small to measure.

Do you feel just as skeptical about the trillions of neutrinos that pass through every cubic centimeter of your body every second? They have mass too. They also react with normal matter, unlike DM. And neutrinos are very hard to detect, but much easier to detect than DM.

 

[Questioner]

Neutrinos were predicted as a product nuclear reactions. Neutrinos are nearly massless.

DM by 'required' property must have vastly more mass than Neutrinos.

Maybe you weren't aware Neutrinos HAVE been detected.

Movement is energy transfer.
DM by physics law is not creating energy it must be releasing energy to cause any prospective movement.

All those gravity vibration rattling around are by definition heat.

Dark matter background heat.

That should be measurable.

Without it DM is proven nonsense.

Put up or shut up.

 

[billslugg]

I have put up but you don't pay attention. Here is an example.

In post #37 I said:
"And neutrinos are very hard to detect, but much easier to detect than DM."

And then in post #38 you said:

Maybe you weren't aware Neutrinos HAVE been detected.

 

[Questioner]

Neutrinos have almost no mass so they are only detected when they crash into some particle of a atom.

DM is 'required' to have significant mass which tends to pull matter to it greatly increasing the likelihood of a collision.

Oh, right they have no physical presence to crash into,

why,

because they are completely imaginary.

 

[Questioner]

"DM follows gravity, but not really because it is space filling."

"DM is undetectable directy."

"It bobbles around unstoppably, perturbing visible matter,
yet magically produces no heat."

Ocam's razzor,
"Perhaps DM is undetectable because it's not there."

I am going to go with Ocam on this one.

 

[Questioner]

You say DM responds to gravity but that in fact is a lie. In no identifiable gravity well does it have anything other than uniform distribution and that uniform distribution applies to vast empty space as well. And It's exactly equivalent to empty space.

So in point of fact DM does not respond to gravity.

Moving particles of mass bearing DM can not help but confer heat to visible matter and DM should show up as DM background heat wherever it is.

DM due to significant mass should create a greater propensity to collide with visible matter.

DM is a no show everywhere because it isn't there.

DM is astrophysics's naked emperor

Lie to yourselves & anyone foolish enough to listen,
but i don't need any 'authoritative' nonsense in my life.

 

[Helio]

Lie to yourselves & anyone foolish enough to listen,
but i don't need any 'authoritative' nonsense in my life.

The observed evidence, however, greatly supports what you clearly have chosen to reject…it’s called science.

Hundreds of observations show DM, whatever it is, exists because it is not homogenous, but clumpy on galactic scales.

How can you erroneously claim it’s homogenous and also claim it doesn’t exist?

Let the objective-based evidence inform your subjective opinions. If you can better explain all the observations, then you will praised.

 

[Questioner]

Your love of theory is not a replacement for rational deduction.

You can label yourself any way you want to,
but you're pedaling nonsense.

It demonstrates how lame human 'intellect' & 'cognition' are.

 

[Helio]

It demonstrates how lame human 'intellect' & 'cognition' are.

Modern science is our best answer to help our “lame” intellect.

Ptolemy’s model was not defeated until Galileo produced solid objective evidence falsifying it, which the Jesuits quickly agreed.

Hand-waving will not advance any view where objective evidence strongly falsifies it.

Let’s agree to disagree.

 

[Questioner]

Where does a single visible gravity well show any unseen additional mass?

Gaseous nitrogen is effectively innert and non-polar yet it piles up more densely at the bottom of gravity wells.

Why doesn't DM do the same?

Because if doesn't it isn't responding to gravity which means it is in contradiction of the basic principle of gravity's effect between masses.

Which means DM doesn't have mass.

Uniformly distributed 'cold dark matter' is identical to cold dark empty space.

What is purported to evidence DM only happens on grand galactic scales.

And why would the hypothesized DM in virtually every galaxy have a tight correlation with the size of the central black hole of that galaxy?

If the unstoppable particles of DM are moving around they will instill heat to visible matter.

DM's ceaseless motion should create a background heat/vibration signature wherever it is purported to be.

DM should have a greater propensity to collide with visible matter as well as with itself than luminal speed neutrinos do due to significant mass.

<shrug>
But I suppose all that doesn't matter,
you have your lovely theory to defend.

Whatever.

 

[Helio]

Where does a single visible gravity well show any unseen additional mass?

There are hundreds of observations of these. The study of DM in the "Bullet Cluster" may help you understand that DM is not a question of "if" but of "what"?

 

[finiter]

If the high recessional velocity of the far away galaxies causes their G to be less, then this would affect the stars near to the center as well as far away at the edge. This is not what we see.

What I am saying is that gravity (gravitational constant) increases with speed (proportional to the square of the speed). If the high recessional velocities of galaxies represent their actual speed (in Newtonian space), then their G is higher not lower.

If velocity determined G, then our orbit calculations here in the Solar System would be affected. Our Earth's speed through the Solar System of 30 km/s would be one fifth of the velocity of a star on the edge of a far away galaxy, about 130 km/s. We'd see the effects right here, but we don't.

The present value of the so-called universal G is based on measurements made on Earth moving at 30km/s. So, it is the G for that speed. Sun (solar system) moves at about 220km/s. So its G is nearly 54 times high and so the mass of sun only 1/54 of the present estimate. But the value of GM does not change, and so it does not affect the orbit calculations.

 

[Questioner]

Again the Bullet cluster is a grand scale thing and nothing specific.

Where is a single case of DM's gravity influence with any specific object?

The Omega cluster is only 16,000 LYs away and reputed to have notable DM.

Where is a single or binary star or any visible object under the influence of unseen mass?

The gravity equation applies to any mass.
DM should be drawn to visible mass because the supposition is DM has mass.

If DM isn't drawn to visible mass that can only be because DM itself has no mass.

If DM has no mass it is a failed hypothesis.

 

[Questioner]

(Omega Centauri cluster)