Dark matter looking dark

Mar 17, 2020
17
6
515
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you don't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
470
495
1,060
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
17
6
515
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
1,012
707
1,560
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. ;)
 
Mar 17, 2020
17
6
515
I just read an abstract called "A Unified Electro-Gravity (UEG) Theory to Model Gravitational Mass in Galaxy Clusters without Dark Matter" from a recent American Astronomical Society meeting during 2020. The report claims to overcome the failures of the MOND theory in Bullet Clusters and Gravitational Lensing measurements.

If this report does not get derailed, then I am more convinced than ever that dark matter does not exist. The only proof in my mind that I will accept at this time is for someone to identify what dark matter is or what it contains. UEG, MOND or a similar theory now should take center stage.
 

Catastrophe

There never was a good war, or a bad peace
Feb 18, 2020
2,020
1,165
3,570
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.
From your very own suggestion:
QUOTE
However, MOND and its generalisations do not adequately account for observed properties of galaxy clusters, and no satisfactory cosmological model has been constructed from the hypothesis.
QUOTE

Cat :)
 
Mar 17, 2020
17
6
515
Additional evidence against the existence of dark matter is the theory of Quantized Inertia (QI). Actually observed phenomena such as Hawking Radiation and Unruh Radiation may be contributing forces over very long distances to visible galaxies that may be "adding" to the mass of the distant objects thereby keeping the bodies together without dark matter.

Therefore, so far, we have the MOND effect, UEG theory and now QI all contributing to the changes of gravity in our physical universe. These effects may all have individual substance OR maybe be all related. But, either each standing alone or commutative, they have more substance in my mind than does the existence of dark matter.

Thanks again for reading this pitch. :)
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2019
5
1
515
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.
shellyhe The existence of Dark Matter, in my theory is responsible for the movement of galaxy‘s and speeding up, fact red blue shift discovered by NASA also Dark Matter that is in patches, this mystery is answered using simple Newtonian physic in my theory. This theory explains what is happening in the center of galaxy’s and how the atom is powered by Dark energy . A lot more facts that give support to how Gravity works and what it really is, everything that is factually supported
 
Mar 7, 2021
8
0
10
"Dark matter. We can't see it. We can't quantify it. We don't know whether it can be converted into regular matter or vice versa. Yet we are supposed to believe it exists." - paraphrasing Rupert Sheldrake

What's the difference between this kind of belief and any old religious dogma? Is it the cosmic background radiation?
 
Mar 7, 2021
8
0
10
OK, on 2nd thought my bad. The cosmic background radiation thing is the purported proof of the Big Bang.

Which inspires me - undaunted - to paraphrase yet another brilliant thinker-outside-of-the-box, Terrence McKenna. He said; "Today's astrophysics are based on the following principle - "OK, you give us one free miracle, and then we can explain all of the rest.'"
 
Mar 17, 2020
17
6
515
I just want to add more evidence that the MOND Theory is real and tangible. I just read a beautiful but a little too deep discussion about MOND on a website called Scholarpedia.com.

Author attempts to explain almost all cases of non-existence of dark matter including Bullet Clusters. MOND now looks an even more than ever convincing theory to me. Maybe MOND is just more complicated than before but everything makes sense.

So please dont discount these facts now. At least all scientists and would be scientists give MOND more breathing room and just read the new substantial math.

Also another article that looks interesting is "The Chameleon Theory of Gravity" may have an impact also against Dark Matter but my jury is still out on this subject.

Anyway I am getting closer is resting my case against Dark Matter. Now let me see if other folks follow suit.
 

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you don't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
470
495
1,060
I just want to add more evidence that the MOND Theory is real and tangible. I just read a beautiful but a little too deep discussion about MOND on a website called Scholarpedia.com.

Author attempts to explain almost all cases of non-existence of dark matter including Bullet Clusters. MOND now looks an even more than ever convincing theory to me. Maybe MOND is just more complicated than before but everything makes sense.

So please dont discount these facts now. At least all scientists and would be scientists give MOND more breathing room and just read the new substantial math.

Also another article that looks interesting is "The Chameleon Theory of Gravity" may have an impact also against Dark Matter but my jury is still out on this subject.

Anyway I am getting closer is resting my case against Dark Matter. Now let me see if other folks follow suit.
What is MOND?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you don't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
470
495
1,060
Thank you! :)


I just want to add more evidence that the MOND Theory is real and tangible. I just read a beautiful but a little too deep discussion about MOND on a website called Scholarpedia.com.

Author attempts to explain almost all cases of non-existence of dark matter including Bullet Clusters. MOND now looks an even more than ever convincing theory to me. Maybe MOND is just more complicated than before but everything makes sense.

So please dont discount these facts now. At least all scientists and would be scientists give MOND more breathing room and just read the new substantial math.

Also another article that looks interesting is "The Chameleon Theory of Gravity" may have an impact also against Dark Matter but my jury is still out on this subject.

Anyway I am getting closer is resting my case against Dark Matter. Now let me see if other folks follow suit.
"While Newton's Laws predict that stellar rotation velocities should decrease with distance from the galactic centre, Rubin and collaborators found instead that they remain almost constant[9] – the rotation curves are said to be "flat". This observation necessitates at least one of the following:

(1)There exists in galaxies large quantities of unseen matter which boosts the stars' velocities beyond what would be expected on the basis of the visible mass alone, or
(2)Newton's Laws do not apply to galaxies.

Option (1) leads to the dark matter hypothesis; option (2) leads to MOND."

Now, how is option 2 even logical? I mean, I know that it is logical, but it is totally against the concept of Laws of Physics. Laws of Physics are universal, you can't have different laws of Physics for Earth and different laws of Physics for Sagittarius A*, that is against the basic concept of Physics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Oct 14, 2020
15
10
15
The last time I read about MOND, the article said it was flawed and didn't explain certain important details.

Personally, I think dark matter is simply primordial black holes (small 5 to 10 solar masses?) created in the big bang. The black holes would be too small for us to detect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007

ASK THE COMMUNITY