No dark matter

[Randy sole]

Richard Fyman once said doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is if its wrong it's wrong there is no dark matter
I do have a solution!
The universe The fabric of space the universe is made up of fabric each galaxy has its own fabric so let's say a star in any galaxy, it is held place or spinning round in its own galaxy by that galaxies fabric so no need for non interacting particles or extra gravity. ENJOY

 

[Cat-Ret-Jet]

N A S A has stated that the Dark Matter is in patches, how did they make that statement if did not have proof.
As far as rotation of galaxies, the planet, and each solar system is it torque and that only happens when there is resistance of something that has rotation, the electron in the valance of each atom.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

IMO dark matter/energy is a byproduct of fluctuations creation of temp particles.
Fluctuation is at an energy balance so no new particle stay.
Conservation of energy.

Temp particle though have temp energy and matter and over the size of our BB universe that could easily be dark matter and dark energy as temp products that have a net result.

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

Just thought I would share my latest thoughts about dark energy/matter, space-time and gravitation with you, I hope you find them amusing.

I actually find the dark matter hypothesis both unsatisfactory and unnecessary, as IMO a much simpler explanation for the supposed dark matter induced gravitational halo's surrounding many galaxies already exists,
Dark-energy, aka the cosmological constant, reveals itself via the cosmic red-shift and it is really this metrically expanding energy field that gets curved by the proximity of mass . Space-time might actually be the precursor of dark energy though, because the way space & time are bound in a continuum would mean if time progresses so too does Space/distance. Progression of time occurring at every point in the universe = progression of distance at every point in the universe. End result... A metrically expanding universe!
To cut a long story short, If the proposed ultra mundane corpuscles, of Le' Sages' theory of gravitation , are replaced by the concept of dark energy, a rational explanation of gravitation emerges Galaxies for all intents and purpose would become single massive objects, with enormous gravitation.

There may actually be a grain of truth in the above.. but then it may also be total rubbish/trash, just one of likely a million alternatives to the dark matter hypothesis, which IMO belongs somewhere between gravitons and unicorns in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Catastrophe]

"There may actually be a grain of truth in the above.. but then it may also be total rubbish/trash, just one of likely a million alternatives to the dark matter hypothesis, which IMO belongs somewhere between gravitons and unicorns in the grand scheme of things."

One of those may, as you posted, turn out to be correct. Then again it may well be something completely different.

Personally, I really favour unicorns.

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Just thought I would share my latest thoughts about dark energy/matter, space-time and gravitation with you, I hope you find them amusing.

I actually find the dark matter hypothesis both unsatisfactory and unnecessary, as IMO a much simpler explanation for the supposed dark matter induced gravitational halo's surrounding many galaxies already exists,
Dark-energy, aka the cosmological constant, reveals itself via the cosmic red-shift and it is really this metrically expanding energy field that gets curved by the proximity of mass . Space-time might actually be the precursor of dark energy though, because the way space & time are bound in a continuum would mean if time progresses so too does Space/distance. Progression of time occurring at every point in the universe = progression of distance at every point in the universe. End result... A metrically expanding universe!
To cut a long story short, If the proposed ultra mundane corpuscles, of Le' Sages' theory of gravitation , are replaced by the concept of dark energy, a rational explanation of gravitation emerges Galaxies for all intents and purpose would become single massive objects, with enormous gravitation.

There may actually be a grain of truth in the above.. but then it may also be total rubbish/trash, just one of likely a million alternatives to the dark matter hypothesis, which IMO belongs somewhere between gravitons and unicorns in the grand scheme of things.

Well dark energy/matter and expansion simply don't work regionally.
Any galaxy traveling towards ours flies in the face of expansion and a dark energy expansion force.

You could be very right that galaxies have lots of unaccounted mass so the gravitational force might be well beyond what we think and the true size of a galaxy could be 5x or 10x what we see as quark soup and gas.
If a galaxy is in star format or black hole format the gravity signature will be the same.

Dark flow really is a terrible wedge for dark energy/matter but does allow regional galaxies to act much different than distant ones.

IMO expansion is our neighbor BB areas gravitational attraction causing our expansion and dark flow points to them.

Filling in to a needed amount from a total of 35% isn't a great reason for a theory (dark energy/matter)

Then again they may exist and just not be what we expect and do what we expect.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

N A S A has stated that the Dark Matter is in patches, how did they make that statement if did not have proof.
As far as rotation of galaxies, the planet, and each solar system is it torque and that only happens when there is resistance of something that has rotation, the electron in the valance of each atom.

Yep either dark energy/matter permeates the entire universe or it doesn't.
Adding sometimes math to a theory usually means it's wrong.
No evidence at all that dark energy or matter or expansion exists between the Moon and Earth.
If any of the 3 existed we would see detectable shifts though they might be tiny still detectable.

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

Quote... [Any galaxy traveling towards ours flies in the face of expansion and a dark energy expansion force. ]

Really, how so? Once set in motion, (By whatever unknown means set it in motion , ) an object , even one as large as a galaxy, would not need to have a very high velocity to exceed the rate of cosmic expansion and traverse a relatively small spatial separation such as the one between our milky way galaxy and M31.
M31 is at present roughly 2 .5 million light years distant from the milky way and cosmic expansion is estimated to be73.3 km per second plus or minus 2 to 5 km for every 3.3 million light years of intervening distance. so having a velocity which could close such a small gap is well within the bounds of possibility.

Dark flow is something I am aware of but have never studied and I wasn't aware that it had any noticeable effect on our local area within the universe, so I'm not going to comment.

Would I be correct in suggesting that you think (As do I) the Universe is much much bigger than the tiny part of it which we can comprehend? If so that could lead to an interesting conversation !

I am an avid proponent of dark energy, aka the cosmological constant and although I don't understand exactly how apparent concepts such as space and time can combine and become a pseudo material phenomenon , it seems that as Minkowski suggested, they really do.
I cannot say the same about dark matter, I don't believe in dark matter as I consider it to be a fudge factor introduced in an attempt to explain why galaxies seem to be surrounded by an invisible source of gravitation. the simple answer to this apparent anomaly is, that although gravity is certainly an effect of the curvature of a medium within space-time, The medium being curved is dark energy, not space-time itself. IMO Gravitation is caused by mass interrupting the push effect of the dark energy.

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

[N A S A has stated that the Dark Matter is in patches, how did they make that statement if did not have proof]

NASA may well have detected gravitational anomalies, but there is no proof that dark matter exists, so I'm sure NASA would have made it clear that no anomalies could be confirmed as effects of the presence of dark matter

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Quote... [Any galaxy traveling towards ours flies in the face of expansion and a dark energy expansion force. ]

Really, how so? Once set in motion, (By whatever unknown means set it in motion , ) an object , even one as large as a galaxy, would not need to have a very high velocity to exceed the rate of cosmic expansion and traverse a relatively small spatial separation such as the one between our milky way galaxy and M31.
M31 is at present roughly 2 .5 million light years distant from the milky way and cosmic expansion is estimated to be73.3 km per second plus or minus 2 to 5 km for every 3.3 million light years of intervening distance. so having a velocity which could close such a small gap is well within the bounds of possibility.

Dark flow is something I am aware of but have never studied and I wasn't aware that it had any noticeable effect on our local area within the universe, so I'm not going to comment.

Would I be correct in suggesting that you think (As do I) the Universe is much much bigger than the tiny part of it which we can comprehend? If so that could lead to an interesting conversation !

I am an avid proponent of dark energy, aka the cosmological constant and although I don't understand exactly how apparent concepts such as space and time can combine and become a pseudo material phenomenon , it seems that as Minkowski suggested, they really do.
I cannot say the same about dark matter, I don't believe in dark matter as I consider it to be a fudge factor introduced in an attempt to explain why galaxies seem to be surrounded by an invisible source of gravitation. the simple answer to this apparent anomaly is, that although gravity is certainly an effect of the curvature of a medium within space-time, The medium being curved is dark energy, not space-time itself. IMO Gravitation is caused by mass interrupting the push effect of the dark energy.

Lets have a look at the evidence.
Between the moon and earth we have no expansion or contraction.
no dark matter no dark energy and no expansion.
Any of the 3 would be detectable in tiny shifts.

IMO the only way two galaxies can merge is if expansion was slowing then got a speedup allowing the original attraction to continue.
If we have dark energy expanding the universe it's impossible for any two galaxies to merge.

Easier solution is dark energy/matter is just a byproduct of fluctuations temp particle creation.
They both exist but only temp as a net energy and gravity mass across the universe, could easily be the missing 65% energy/mass.

The universe has always been expanding and shifting towards neighbor BB areas (dark flow)
Pulling on a universe allows regional differences such as galaxy mergers and great attractors like we see.

I think we are just 1 BB in an endless sea of them.

All JMO.

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

Quote...[Lets have a look at the evidence.
Between the moon and earth we have no expansion or contraction.
no dark matter no dark energy and no expansion.
Any of the 3 would be detectable in tiny shifts. ]

During the Apollo moon landings, reflectors were placed on the moons surface. The reflectors allowed researchers to send pulses of laser light from the earth to the moon and back. The distance between the earth and the moon was then calculated by recording how long the light took to make the return journey.
by using this method over time, the moon was found to be receding from the earth by 1.5" per year.

However... the recession of the moon is not attributed to cosmic expansion, the inverse square law which applies to the strength of gravitation means that at such a distance gravitation easily overwhelms cosmic expansion

If you don't believe cosmic expansion is caused by dark energy, how do you explain the cosmic-redshift... To my mind, the cosmic redshift indicates that most galaxies in the observable universe are moving away from our own galaxy, due to the observable universe going through a phase of metric expansion. The more distant from our own galaxy any other galaxy is, the more the light from that galaxy is red-shifted The observations certainly agree with the postulate!

Einsteins' theory of gravitation is basically correct, apart from the warping of Space-Time... Space-Time is just a concept, it isn't actually made of anything so cannot be warped. The same cannot be said about Dark- Energy.
Dark energy ( whatever it turns out to be) appears to be made of something, as it doesn't seem to pass through matter easily. which would explain why it pushes galaxies apart rather than going straight through all the matter contained in them, This also supports the Le'Sage type theory of shadow gravitation . So... I believe its time to re-evaluate what we think we know about gravitation. as there definitely seems to something wrong with the currently accepted theory.
Matter tells Dark Energy how to curve ,Dark Energy tells matter how to move. Hmm... "That sounds better than the original !"

 

[Misha Marchuk]

Dark matter is a very cool theory, there are a lot of assumptions where it came from, but as for me, it should have been called not dark matter, which seems to imply destruction, but white or light matter, or the matter of creation. I read somewhere that in theory anything can be done with dark matter, any object or any body. Even in the well-known Minecraft game there is a modification in which you can get this matter by creating instability of temporary particles, and already make anything out of it, for example, diamonds.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Quote...[Lets have a look at the evidence.
Between the moon and earth we have no expansion or contraction.
no dark matter no dark energy and no expansion.
Any of the 3 would be detectable in tiny shifts. ]

During the Apollo moon landings, reflectors were placed on the moons surface. The reflectors allowed researchers to send pulses of laser light from the earth to the moon and back. The distance between the earth and the moon was then calculated by recording how long the light took to make the return journey.
by using this method over time, the moon was found to be receding from the earth by 1.5" per year.

However... the recession of the moon is not attributed to cosmic expansion, the inverse square law which applies to the strength of gravitation means that at such a distance gravitation easily overwhelms cosmic expansion

If you don't believe cosmic expansion is caused by dark energy, how do you explain the cosmic-redshift... To my mind, the cosmic redshift indicates that most galaxies in the observable universe are moving away from our own galaxy, due to the observable universe going through a phase of metric expansion. The more distant from our own galaxy any other galaxy is, the more the light from that galaxy is red-shifted The observations certainly agree with the postulate!

Einsteins' theory of gravitation is basically correct, apart from the warping of Space-Time... Space-Time is just a concept, it isn't actually made of anything so cannot be warped. The same cannot be said about Dark- Energy.
Dark energy ( whatever it turns out to be) appears to be made of something, as it doesn't seem to pass through matter easily. which would explain why it pushes galaxies apart rather than going straight through all the matter contained in them, This also supports the Le'Sage type theory of shadow gravitation . So... I believe its time to re-evaluate what we think we know about gravitation. as there definitely seems to something wrong with the currently accepted theory.
Matter tells Dark Energy how to curve ,Dark Energy tells matter how to move. Hmm... "That sounds better than the original !"

Although we don't see any + or minus from dark matter or dark energy.
A steady state of relativistic alteration of earth/moon orbit with defined mechanics.

If either existed we would see minute changes in satellite distance.
They don't seem to exist.
As a energy conservation product of fluctuation they wont.
As either dark energy/matter they would.

We are at a pretty primitive understanding of the universe and the behind the scenes reality so wild guesses right now are best we can hope for.
Evidence is always the great key to understanding and an open mind always helps.

 

[Catastrophe]

Are dark matter and dark energy simply artifacts used to 'fix' mathematical equations?

Cat

 

[IG2007]

Are dark matter and dark energy simply artifacts used to 'fix' mathematical equations?

Cat

Yes, and there are evidences of their existence too.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Are dark matter and dark energy simply artifacts used to 'fix' mathematical equations?

Cat

IMO they are artifacts of fluctuations particle creation and almost immediate destruction.
Both are temp energy and temp gravity across the universe with an permanent effect on the universes gravity and free energy.
Dark energy/Dark matter?

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

Yes, and there are evidences of their existence too.

If only that were true... Yes,the existence of dark energy, aka the cosmological constant, can be confirmed due to it being the lone logical explanation for the observed metric expansion of our universe! Dark matter however, IMO, is simply a manifestation of the wishful thinking, behind the attempted covering up of the misconception that gravitation is some kind of attractive force. even though Einstein specifically told us that gravitation is not a force, it is an effect of the presence of mass curving space-time. This topic fascinates me so much, that I tend to waffle and not make the point I am trying to make. so, please bear with me..

The observed motion of the stars withinin galaxies is inconsistant with the estimated mass/gravitation of those galaxies. Meaning either the theory of gravitation is wrong, or, galaxies are surrounded by immense haloes of invisible matter which gravitationally effects the baryonic matter in those galaxy. I prefer the former of the two options, and I believe Le'sage put forward a theory which actually explains gravitation rather than just stating as Einstein did that mass curves space time and the curvature of space influences the way matter moves Or... were Le'Sage and Einstein both putting forward the same basic theory with different wording?

In Le' Sages version of gravitation the universe is filled with particles he called ultra mundane corpuscles. These particles exert an outward pressure-like effect, simultaneously in all directions, (Hmm sounds rather like dark energy or Einsteins cosmological constant to me.)
Le'Sage proposed that these particles (corpuscles) didnt pass easily through matter, so most corpuscles would be blocked thus creating a shadow effect that would form a halo of quasi-low-pressure around an object made of baryonic matter. the larger and denser the object, the more pronounced the shadow effect would be.
The shadow effect would also diminishes with distance at the same rate as is dictated by the invese square law.

When there are multiple objects with mass in one vicinity the shadowing effect can merge into a three dimensional geometry , not unlike a three dimensional version of a barometric chart

Any two massive objects in the the same vicinity experience a reduced amount of quasi-pressure between them and are consquently pushed together by the surrounging higher quasi-pressure of the corpuscles.

In some ways cosmologists have been stuck in an inescapable rut by not acknowledging that there is something wrong with the way we percieve gravitation, Time is likely the precursor of dark energy and dark energy replaces the ultra mundane corpuscles of Le'sages theorum, other than that... What can be said other than "Well done LeSage ." Or, Well done to whoever formulated the theory, if the rumours of plagiarism by le'Sage are true.


I love simplicity so making dark energy responsible for both cosmic expansion and gravitation certainly ticks a box with me.


No need for gravitons!
No need for dark matter!
Just dark energy! Which is an effect of space-time.

 

[Ellamental]

"There may actually be a grain of truth in the above.. but then it may also be total rubbish/trash, just one of likely a million alternatives to the dark matter hypothesis, which IMO belongs somewhere between gravitons and unicorns in the grand scheme of things."

One of those may, as you posted, turn out to be correct. Then again it may well be something completely different.

Personally, I really favour unicorns.

Cat

Cute answer !!

 

[Ellamental]

Although we don't see any + or minus from dark matter or dark energy.
A steady state of relativistic alteration of earth/moon orbit with defined mechanics.

If either existed we would see minute changes in satellite distance.
They don't seem to exist.
As a energy conservation product of fluctuation they wont.
As either dark energy/matter they would.

We are at a pretty primitive understanding of the universe and the behind the scenes reality so wild guesses right now are best we can hope for.
Evidence is always the great key to understanding and an open mind always helps.

Didn't CERN supposedly find dark matter?

 

[Ellamental]

Richard Fyman once said doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is if its wrong it's wrong there is no dark matter
I do have a solution!
The universe The fabric of space the universe is made up of fabric each galaxy has its own fabric so let's say a star in any galaxy, it is held place or spinning round in its own galaxy by that galaxies fabric so no need for non interacting particles or extra gravity. ENJOY

I lived on Zorthian Ranch where the famous Richard Feynman used to take art lessons in exchange for physics lessons from my landlord Jirayr Zorthian. It was really an unusual place to live way up in the mountains by JPL. https://lab.cccb.org/en/feynman-and-zorthian-a-third-culture-friendship/