Dark Matter No More

[shellyhe]

For many years, I have remained in the camp of the MOND theory in lieu of the existence for dark matter. Now with the new discoveries by the James Webb telescope, along withe a new theory by a prominent Canadian astronomer, and the possible emergence of a fifth force in the universe, it now may be just enough to dispell the real existence of dark matter.

I know we don't have the equations or proof of the irregularities of the MOND theory on bullet clusters, gravitational lensing and a few other examples, that problem may be put to rest soon with more observations and research. I am standing pat in my hand that my opponents do not not any other proof of dark matter. But stay tuned.

 

[Atlan0001]

For many years, I have remained in the camp of the MOND theory in lieu of the existence for dark matter. Now with the new discoveries by the James Webb telescope, along withe a new theory by a prominent Canadian astronomer, and the possible emergence of a fifth force in the universe, it now may be just enough to dispell the real existence of dark matter.

I know we don't have the equations or proof of the irregularities of the MOND theory on bullet clusters, gravitational lensing and a few other examples, that problem may be put to rest soon with more observations and research. I am standing pat in my hand that my opponents do not not any other proof of dark matter. But stay tuned.

I really do have to shake my head and roll my eyes over what you had to say above, although by no means are alone in what you had to say. As certain as there is a holographical past histories past light cone to the universe (aka the observed "observable universe"), there is at the same time an offsetting future histories future light cone to the universe (aka the unobserved "unobservable universe"), in which all the actual physical matter of the universe at large resides . . . resides darkly until it pops up out of nowhere (springs out of the vacuum of an instantaneous spontaneous concurrent REALTIME)!

 

[shellyhe]

I have read your reply to my thread many times over and conclude that you don't know what you are talking about. Right now, it is impossible to prove that dark matter pops in and out of existence. Sorry.

 

[Atlan0001]

I have read your reply to my thread many times over and conclude that you don't know what you are talking about. Right now, it is impossible to prove that dark matter pops in and out of existence. Sorry.

I'm sorry too, for your inability to understand what you read. Quantum physical particles are always popping "in and out of existence." And, anyway, 'nonexistence' wasn't where I was saying what was once dark matter was coming from!!!! Although you seem to be obviously unaware of the fact, the speed of light is NOT instantaneous across distances (falling further and ever further behind instantaneous spontaneous concurrent REALTIME, and from one light second to the next, one second to the next, things have moved (darkly), are moving (darkly), into the future histories future light cone from light's coordinate point past histories past light cone hologram of SPACETIME!

There is more than one dimension to the universe of time. And that minimally geometric triangle of points expands and contracts triangulations and light from any one point reflects one 1-dimensional line only! It doesn't reflect the geometry of the triangle (the triangulation) of an expanding or contracting triangle of coordinate SPACETIME past and REALTIME present (SPACETIME future) points. It does so at the largest scale of universes as an accelerating expansion, or conversely an accelerating contraction, in and of "observable universe!" The accelerating expansion is a matter of distance gain in triangularity between the single line of observed-observable universe relativity and the two lines of the unobserved-unobservable universe reality of the triangle of lines and points.... The unobserved-unobservable universe reality that includes the dark physical matter of the universe (darkly), and not the hologram matter!
-------------------------

"Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today...." Antigonish, by Hughes Mearns.

 

[Gibsense]

new theory by a prominent Canadian astronomer, and the possible emergence of a fifth force in the universe, it now may be just enough to dispell the real existence of dark matter.

Interesting. Can you quote the new theory in more detail or provide a reference, please?

 

[Classical Motion]

I believe that there is an unknown force in this universe. And the reason that it is unknown, is because we think we know it.

Gravity is the unknown force.

 

[shellyhe]

Interesting. Can you quote the new theory in more detail or provide a reference, please?

It might be Catherine Heymans from Scotland or Dr. Mike Hudson from University of Waterloo, Canada.

 

[shellyhe]

It might be Catherine Heymans from Scotland or Dr. Mike Hudson from University of Waterloo, Canada.

 

[Gibsense]

Mike Hudson, a physicist at the University of Waterloo, is researching the potential "fifth force" in physics. This would be in addition to the four known forces: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces.
Speculative research of galaxy distribution. No evidence so far declared I think.

 

[Gibsense]

Mike Hudson, a physicist at the University of Waterloo, is researching the potential "fifth force" in physics

Actually, come to think of it, there is an 'in your face' in plane sight 5th force: It is whatever causes time. Or just, Time.

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

Actually, come to think of it, there is an 'in your face' in plane sight 5th force: It is whatever causes time. Or just, Time.

I have actually been pursuing a similar train of thought for quite some time, Gibsense . As you doubtless know, there exists an equivalence between these two seemingly separate phenomena, which we perceive as space and time... Or as I prefer to think of it, the distance time continuum

The term light second, clearly indicates that space is both a separation in distance of 186,000 miles, and a temporal separation of one second. with the simultaneous traversing of these two separations being known as motion. Distance and time seem to be joined at the hip, so to speak. Meaning where one goes. so too must the other.

Time seems to be the prime suspect, in this peculiar tale, as its very nature is to progress. and its passage seems to be unstoppable.
So, If time is relentlessly progressing/increasing, does that mean its other incarnation of distance, must also Increase ? The relativistic motion of two intangible phenomena, instigating cosmic expansion, Now that's a strange thought!

the dark energy problems explained in just a few lines?
Who knows ? however its fun to think about , (and mostly tongue in cheek.)

 

[Gibsense]

Time seems to be the prime suspect, in this peculiar tale, as its very nature is to progress. and its passage seems to be unstoppable.
So, If time is relentlessly progressing/increasing, does that mean its other incarnation of distance, must also Increase ?

Yes!
Time, as you suggest, is the act of pushing the universe's limits through expansion—a process rather than a dimension. The direction in which time operates locally depends on the universe's shape. Additionally, the direction of time's progress locally depends on minor variations, such as gravity wells, voids, and valleys, which are moulded into the 3D space of a 4D environment in which the universe exists. A rough, bumpy surface to the universe.

This concept—that time is a progression over a distance—illustrates more fundamental circumstances:

The plot of time against distance defines spatial expansion. If, by some external measure, you could demonstrate that the speed of light (internally a time plot against distance, defined as 'c') is only a constant within that frame, and it could be any speed outside of that frame and still be 'c'. My attempts to describe this are becoming increasingly challenging!

So basically the speed of light is always 'c' as measured within that frame's circumstance and when expansion slows down or speeds up it is always 'c' within that frame at that time. So the speed of light is always 'c' even when expansion speeds up or slows down but when measured from a different era would appear not to be 'c'. My efforts are in decline, lol

We can now see that there must be a force causing expansion that has a symptom called Time.

 

[Jim Franklin]

A recent study published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society has ruled out MOND as a viable theory. The study found that Newtonian theory is a more accurate description of the orbital behavior of wide binary stars than MOND. The measurement ruled out MOND by sixteen sigma, which is far larger than a five-sigma result that is considered definitive. Here is a link to an article about THIS

MOND was a popular alternative theory to dark matter that suggested the Newtonian laws of motion were not quite right. However, MOND has struggled to explain a range of observations, including:

• The acoustic peaks of the cosmic microwave background
• The Bullet cluster
• Relativistic effects such as gravitational lensing and gravitational waves
• The residual mass discrepancy in galaxy clusters

Some other challenges to MOND include:

• A study led by Dr. Indranil Banik, a past supporter of MOND, demonstrated that the theory is wrong
  
  
• Observations of five of the closest open stellar clusters to Earth show discrepancies from regular Newtonian dynamics
  
  
• Data contamination in previous studies, where certain stars or binaries were used that were too far away or had a difficult orientation

Thus, your post is incorrect and does not fit with current observational, statistical and mathematical modelling of the MOND theory.

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

Yes!
Time, as you suggest, is the act of pushing the universe's limits through expansion—a process rather than a dimension. The direction in which time operates locally depends on the universe's shape. Additionally, the direction of time's progress locally depends on minor variations, such as gravity wells, voids, and valleys, which are moulded into the 3D space of a 4D environment in which the universe exists. A rough, bumpy surface to the universe.

This concept—that time is a progression over a distance—illustrates more fundamental circumstances:

The plot of time against distance defines spatial expansion. If, by some external measure, you could demonstrate that the speed of light (internally a time plot against distance, defined as 'c') is only a constant within that frame, and it could be any speed outside of that frame and still be 'c'. My attempts to describe this are becoming increasingly challenging!

So basically the speed of light is always 'c' as measured within that frame's circumstance and when expansion slows down or speeds up it is always 'c' within that frame at that time. So the speed of light is always 'c' even when expansion speeds up or slows down but when measured from a different era would appear not to be 'c'. My efforts are in decline, lol

We can now see that there must be a force causing expansion that has a symptom called Time.

A picture paints a thousand words, so its said. Even if that picture exists only in your imagination.

On a microscope slide, draw a line of any length, which you can then observe... Consider that line to be a scale representation of a light second, with its length simultaneously representing 186,000 miles, and an elapsed time of one second . if you view that slide under a microscope, then incrementally increase the magnification level of the microscope. To you as an observer, the length of the line you have drawn will appear to increase metrically, however in reality you are merely increasing the scale of both the linear and temporal scale at which you perceive that representation of a light second. No matter how much that temporal separation might get stretched, or compressed the unbreakable ratio of distance and time remains a constant and that constant is the speed of light. I can understand why Einstein called time a persistent illusion, because the rate at which we experience time is not a constant as not only does it depend on our speed through space-time, and any gravitational influence upon that spacetime, but those temporal separations don't even need to be of the same duration its only each ones ratio of distance to time which needs to be correct.to make them the same, why he didn't include space/distance as a component of that illusion eludes me.