DARK MATTER LOOKING DARK

Mar 17, 2020
13
5
15
I am neither a physicist nor a cosmologist but I do have 2 degrees in engineering and am a very logical person. Lately, I am reading more articles supporting the Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) principle on the effects of gravity in the universe over different distances. This is in opposition to the existence of dark matter trying to account for lost matter.

One additional support item is the notion that there is an External Field Effect (EFE) that is generated by the universe as a whole and not by individual sized objects. Just like there is one number for the speed of light in a vacuum or one Hubble Constant for the rate of the universe's expansion, there is this actual physical amount of gravity everywhere. The amount may be very tiny over small distances such as points in a solar system, but looking at gravitational forces at different galaxies, the number may be significantly higher. This will count just the same as if there were dark matter "halos" trying to account for the unseen missing matter.

Let me do this - instead of getting into trouble trying to explain why I believe this way, scientifically which I am definitely not qualified for, I want to ask the mainstream scientific community to take this route: Make the MOND theory the norm and finish out proving its worthiness instead of assuming dark matter definitely exists. I do not like the idea of making dark matter real and not knowing what it is, etc.

All we know now is that over a long distance, it seems that large bodies seem to stay together without accounting for the all the matter. What if gravity over these distances is proportionally higher than small distances? Then indeed the large galaxies and other star systems can account for their togetherness. Once we can identify dark matter, then I can renege from this opinion. But until this happens, MOND is definitely king in my castle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007 and rod
Apr 5, 2020
377
407
560
Dear @shellyhe , my first and probably the last question, how can gravity be more powerful in longer distances than it is in shorter distances? I haven't ever heard of the MOND theory neither have I ever heard of any force exercising more power in longer distances than in shorter distances. Please answer this question of mine, I will answer yours. :)
All we know now is that over a long distance, it seems that large bodies seem to stay together without accounting for the all the matter. What if gravity over these distances is proportionally higher than small distances?
 
Mar 17, 2020
13
5
15
Please read the Wikipedia article on M.O.N.D. They give some equations but I don't want to explain them myself. Take a look.
 
Jun 1, 2020
713
449
760
The problem that I had, and still have but subject to change, with MOND is that it didn't replace DM. It tweaked the gravitational equations to "save the appearances". I think it could solve the non-Keplerian motion of the Andromeda galaxy, but something additional had to be added to their recipe to get it to work in places like clusters, IIRC.

What was their extra ingredient -- DM! But less is needed. Hardly a great selling feature. I'm definitely no expert but this issue caught my eye years back when it came out. Perhaps more tweaks have changed the DM requirement?

The idea of modifying Newton's gravity isn't a new one, actually. The orbital quirk of Mercury (precession) of 43 arcsec/century, suggested another planet (i.e. Vulcan). So when no planet was found -- it was found by some but these claims were eventually falsified -- they assumed Newton's equation needed tweaking for faster moving planets, IIRC.

This is why Einstein knew to test Mercury with his new theory, and he reported heart-palpitations for days after getting it exactly.

Nevertheless, I am however somewhat a fan of Mond -- Kevin Mond. ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY