Resolution of the Dark Matter Mystery

[Bernd Huber]

Dear Space.com,

I have by several qualitatively different sources of evidence (planet 9, earth's water source, the 5 great extinction events, Tabby's star, disappearing and dormant black holes and disappearing planets, super puff planets, etc. and possibly the radio light filaments aligned to the galactic plane, too, all explainable with from black holes ejected gravitationally bound neutrino swarms) extreme confidence in having solved the dark matter mystery now, too, besides the resolution of the cosmology crisis, with vast preliminary, condensed, informal elaboration on that summarized in the following text file: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachme...22853/Cosmology_Crisis_Resolution_Summary.txt

With kind regards,

Bernd Huber

---
Some quick summarizing excerpts:

On the cosmology crisis:

The Big Bang was a hyper-massive rotation-ellipsoid-shaped, extremely fast rotating (which explains the direction-dependent Hubble constants, i.e. the Hubble tension, namely depending on the angle between equator & pole of the black hole and the associated minimum required internal pressure to eject matter with different resulting propagation speeds & accelerations) black hole (without event horizon, like Einstein & Hawking have predicted it, and thus without singularity through infinite mass density and without information paradox) with rupture of quark pairs (and thus the numerous, sufficient for the entire mass of the universe, creation of new quark pairs) but also rupture of itself at some point as a whole, which also caused the baryonic asymmetry (because even in a universe initially balanced between matter & antimatter, with fluctuations, can black holes tend to form only in regions of greater imbalance and mix their contents highly compressed for astronomically long times), the (observed by scientists) uniform rotational movement of all galaxies in the observable universe (by conservation or at least transmission of the angular momentum from the compact Big Bang black hole to the gigantic far out spread matter content in our universe), the big filaments & walls & arcs (logically more likely to be found in equatorial directions), the (super-)voids like the cold spot in the cosmic microwave background radiation (more likely to be found in polar directions) all together in one fell swoop.

Still believing in the Standard Model of Cosmology despite its clear multiple falsification by astronomical observations in 12 different ways (Great Filaments/Walls/Arcs, (Super-)Voids, cold cosmic microwave background spot, Hubble tension, baryon asymmetry, uniform spin/rotation of all galaxies in the observable universe, infinite mass-density singularity & information paradox & causal 1-way disconnection at black holes if event horizons exist, event horizon passings in finite time despite unboundedly diverging gravitational time dilation & the contradictory impossibility of outside observers being able to observe such passings, and the favored orientation that minimal non-symmetric tetrahedra consisting of 4 to each other nearest galaxies each are directed toward as minimal objects that the concept of chirality applies to), that is the real daring hypothesis here compared to my theory, because it can explain these otherwise unexplained mysteries "in one fell swoop" without having to introduce/invent new effects for them (except for the eventual rupturing of hyper-massive black Big Bang holes - similar to the Big Rip Model, only here with quark pair production when quark pairs are torn apart by dark energy in order to obtain the matter that must be sufficient for an entire universe - but think about it: it's better to switch from this one Dozens of problems for the one that can certainly still be solved by subsequent research than throwing away a theory that is so much more plausible, almost perfect, just because instead of 12 problems, 1 new one remains to be explained).

On dark matter:

I figured out that event horizons don't exist and black holes create (by decay & rapid rebuild of unstable nuclei) neutrinos caught in them and catch them from galaxies. And that at perturbations of black holes, they can leak neutrinos in extremely dense packages, gravitationally bound to each other, as streams that can turn into neutrino swarms, shells. The exchange of neutrinos between galaxies then explains the dark energy phenomenon as internal pressure between galaxies with the galactic amounts of them washing through and around them. They transfer their impulse when they land in other galaxies' black hole regions. And when they fly around galaxies they apply a swing by to pull them away, like gravitational lensing, except for neutrinos. The in galaxies contained and by black holes spit out neutrinos then that form swarms of various sizes can explain several phenomena. Such neutrino swarms can be unstable with respect to close encounters of other massive objects that can make them leak neutrinos, with the remaining ones being too few to hold together and dispersing.

Super puff planets then that are "too large, too low density gas giants" can be explained as being neutrino swarms that caught gas & material nearby stars. That process can also slow them down at the approach of proto-stellar discs and end up being bound to stars in binary systems mimicking black holes but being dormant. Neutrinos have no charged and are naturally super-fluid as they barely interact with anything, and so they basically have no friction applying to them. They are also abundant throughout the cosmos which basically no other particle besides the photon is, and are otherwise mainly found in black holes, as studies indicate of what dark matter & energy is. egg-shaped planets then can also be neutrino swarms that caught material that is sensitive to star winds while the neutrino swarm isn't at all, and so the different behavior can lead to such egg shape. Planet 9 might then (if it exists) most likely be a neutrino swarm, too. It would then have accumulated gas and meteros and asteroids flying around, through it, and is in million years long orbit part of a binary system with the sun delivering ice to earth regularly.

And it would be a prime candidate for the ice delivered to the gas planets Saturn and Jupiter, explaining their roughly 200 ice moons. Tabby's star behavior with the irregular occlusion can also be explained. And the same goes for suddenly "vanishing black holes" that aren't black holes (as they lack the charged core component of them besides being similar as both have neutrinos swarming them). As neutrinos are spit out by black holes, they are slowed down from their relativistic speeds since they have to escape the gravitational well. Our galaxy and others have filaments of temporarily glowing bits and pieces of interstellar gas, which are explainable via neutrino streams leaked from black holes as light would accompany them. Therefore all evidence supports my theory that event horizons don't exist (as Einstein & Hawking also believed) and that dark matter and energy are neutrinos.

 

[DarkClearSkies]

Thank you for sharing your alternative ideas on cosmology and black holes. It's interesting to consider different perspectives and hypotheses. However, it is important to note that the scientific understanding of these topics is based on extensive research, empirical evidence, and the consensus of the scientific community.

The theories proposed by Einstein and Hawking, such as general relativity and the existence of event horizons, have been supported by a wealth of observational and experimental evidence. They have provided a robust framework that has stood the test of time and has been crucial in advancing our understanding of the universe.

While it is valuable to explore alternative ideas, it is equally important to subject these ideas to rigorous scientific investigation and evaluation. This involves conducting empirical research, testing predictions against observations, and engaging in peer-reviewed scientific discourse.

The scientific community encourages the pursuit of new knowledge and welcomes the challenge to existing theories. It is through this collective effort, backed by evidence and reasoned debate, that our understanding of the universe continues to evolve and expand. So, while your ideas present interesting possibilities, further research and empirical evidence would be needed to support them and gain wider acceptance within the scientific community.

 

[Bernd Huber]

Yes exactly, and my theory is compatible with observations while the standard model is not. My theory is far superior. And no, all the evidence that is in favor of my theory exists already and has been pointed out by myself specifically already, which is the same evidence that speaks against the standard model. Apparently you didn't pay attention to that and somehow think it hasn't been provided. Be more careful next time.

 

[DarkClearSkies]

You mentioned speculating !

 

[Bernd Huber]

If my theory is speculation, then the standard model is at best an even more speculative hypothesis.

 

[Robotron]

Thank you for sharing your alternative ideas on cosmology and black holes. It's interesting to consider different perspectives and hypotheses. However, it is important to note that the scientific understanding of these topics is based on extensive research, empirical evidence, and the consensus of the scientific community.

The theories proposed by Einstein and Hawking, such as general relativity and the existence of event horizons, have been supported by a wealth of observational and experimental evidence. They have provided a robust framework that has stood the test of time and has been crucial in advancing our understanding of the universe.

While it is valuable to explore alternative ideas, it is equally important to subject these ideas to rigorous scientific investigation and evaluation. This involves conducting empirical research, testing predictions against observations, and engaging in peer-reviewed scientific discourse.

The scientific community encourages the pursuit of new knowledge and welcomes the challenge to existing theories. It is through this collective effort, backed by evidence and reasoned debate, that our understanding of the universe continues to evolve and expand. So, while your ideas present interesting possibilities, further research and empirical evidence would be needed to support them and gain wider acceptance within the scientific community.

Thanks, ChatGPT!

 

[Robotron]

I have a better way of resolving dark matter: it doesn't exist and the big bang never happened.

Before the defenders of the status quo descend upon me en masse, I need to ask you all a question: can the big bang model in its current fashion be falsified? In other words, what *specific* observations could be made that would cast grave doubt on its validity? Are there any? If not, it's useless as a predictive model.

What does the Webb telescope have to find to falsify the BB, for example? What about massive, fully formed galaxies 13 billion years ago? Is that enough? 13.5 BYA? No? How about 14 billion? 20 billion? I expect Webb to find no "baby" galaxies as far back as it can see. It will see countless objects that are "too evolved" or "too old" for the supposed early universe.

Will BB proponents use these observations as a chance to reexamine the BB's fundamental assumptions...or will more adjustable parameters be Scotch taped to the model's tattered remains? Or worse, will never-observed and never-predicted corollaries (a la dark matter and dark energy) continue to be invented out of whole cloth to save the model again ? I guess we'll see.

 

[Jzz]

What does the Webb telescope have to find to falsify the BB, for example? What about massive, fully formed galaxies 13 billion years ago? Is that enough? 13.5 BYA? No? How about 14 billion? 20 billion? I expect Webb to find no "baby" galaxies as far back as it can see. It will see countless objects that are "too evolved" or "too old" for the supposed early universe.

A very interesting observation! Could the question be put the other way around? Is Webb accurate in its estimates of time and distance? At distances of billions of light years, surely perspectives and all known means of detection and differentiation are almost useless. When Cepheids and parallaxes become meaningless, how is it possible to be sure? The answer is that one can’t be sure. When pointing at one galaxy as being billions of years old among trillions of galaxies and stars that occupy the same space, what is the criteria used to determine distance and age?

Further, as I have often stated, the age of the Universe and the speed of light are intimately connected. Scientists extrapolated the Hubble shift with the speed of light and concluded that when the Hubble shift reached the speed of light that that would be the point at which the Universe began. That point turns out to be about 13.5 billion light years away. Hence the age of the Big Bang. There appears to be nothing wrong with this reasoning and much in its favour since the passage of time is indubitably present everywhere we look. More to the point, the indication of the presence of massive black holes at the centres of galaxies also seems to lend credence to our hypothesis of a Big Bang having taken place. Such a scenario would call for the third law of the conservation of energy and the arrow of time being active.

 

[Robotron]

That's a good question. The idea that redshift always indicates recessional velocity (and, hence, in the BB model, distance) is NOT set in stone. According to Halton Arp (of Harvard, CIT, etc.), certain celestial objects (e.g. quasars) have an *intrinsic* redshift. His catalog of observations pointed out that some objects with widely differing redshift appear to be physically connected. This is impossible in the BB model. Yet, he documented dozens of instances where this looks to be the case even after ruling out things like gravitational lensing.

The fact is, if we find a *single* case where objects with vastly different redshift values are in the same vicinity, the entire expansionary model is immediately in dire trouble, if not falsified. Arp had a hell of a time getting telescope time to confirm or deny apparent physical connections between the objects in question. Seems that mainstream astronomers had no interest in pursuing something that might upend their career apple carts.

The hallmark of science is prediction, not fancy math or physics or hypothetical musings, or models with 30 adjustable parameters (lookin' at you, big bang!). The BB has been awful at predicting. Even the two victories it claims are dubious under serious scrutiny. Dark matter and dark energy were never dreamed of, let alone predicted. It got almost everything wrong about comets. And it's constantly shocked by observations of way too bright or energetic celestial bodies at allegedly vast distances, a problem that goes away if you realize the things at high redshifts are not necessarily at such distances and are therefore not nearly as energetic as BB calculations suggest.

Anyhoo, I've asked this question to many BB adherents and the answers range from "I can't think of anything that would falsify the BB" to "It's the best we've got so why not go with it?" Very few proponents can come up with something that the BB couldn't just slap another variable onto to "explain."

The Top 30 Problems With the Big Bang

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang Theory by Tom Van Flandern

www.spaceandmotion.com

Big Bang Didn't Happen

The Big Bang didn't happen | Eric Lerner

The Big Bang Hypothesis - which states the universe has been expanding since it began 14 billion years ago in a hot and dense state - is contradicted by the new James Webb Space Telescope images, writes Eric Lerner.

iai.tv

 

[murgatroyd]

It got almost everything wrong about comets.

Eh? Why would the Big Bang theory have anything to say about comets?

 

[Robotron]

Mainstream models of cometary formation are developed within the context of the big bang model, just like every other cosmological (or in this case, planetary) process. The nebular hypothesis, the Nice model, and the solar nebula model all arise from the assumptions that objects we observe today are the result of the condensation and gravitational processes of the so-called early universe.

And wow, were the predictions off target for those bodies.

 

[billslugg]

When Cepheids and parallaxes become meaningless, how is it possible to be sure? The answer is that one can’t be sure. When pointing at one galaxy as being billions of years old among trillions of galaxies and stars that occupy the same space, what is the criteria used to determine distance and age?

Type 1A supernova is visible even at the edge of the universe. Each one is exactly the same brightness. They are white dwarfs that finally eat enough to go supernova. Each one happens at the same mass.

The expansion of the universe stretches their wavelengths, causes red shift. We also know the decay time is constant for 1A supernovae. The expansion of the Universe stretches it out also. "Tired Light" hypothesis fails here.

 

[Atlan0001]

Trillions of galaxies and stars "time" traveling do not occupy the same "space". There is no same time (other than the time of observation) to the observable universe, and no observable space existing whatsoever to the unobserved universe.

 

[Jzz]

The expansion of the universe stretches their wavelengths, causes red shift. We also know the decay time is constant for 1A supernovae. The expansion of the Universe stretches it out also. "Tired Light" hypothesis fails here.

While it is commendable that a new system has been found to calculate the distances to distant stars, there are problems. To speak of such measurements in imperative terms is questionable. Realistically, how can the standard candle measurement be used in conjunction with a red shift, that too at distances of billions of light years ? Extremely dodgy tactics, and on the edge of credibility. Also, to assume that all of these WD’s have the same composition is a stretch, on the other hand waiting for a supernova whose composition can be accurately determined will in general take more time than is available.

 

[billslugg]

When we look locally we this class of supernova, Type 1a. Every single one we have ever seen, goes off at the same intrinsic brightness. We then look farther away and use them as standard candles. We are forced to assume that physics does not change with time or distance. There is no simpler explanation than BB/LCDM. Numerous lines of evidence show that physics is immutable through time and space. Me personally? I go with "immutable".

 

[Jzz]

When we look locally we this class of supernova, Type 1a. Every single one we have ever seen, goes off at the same intrinsic brightness. We then look farther away and use them as standard candles. We are forced to assume that physics does not change with time or distance. There is no simpler explanation than BB/LCDM. Numerous lines of evidence show that physics is immutable through time and space. Me personally? I go with "immutable".

Bill Slugg, kindly do not interpret my comments as being overly contentious. I would sincerely like to have my doubts cleared up. According to the present knowledge it is possible to tell the age of galaxies billions of light years distant, through the identification of supernovae, that have been found to have the same characteristics of mass, and composition as other previously identified supernovae. At the same time these galaxies are being red shifted by the presence of an ever expanding Universe. Take as an example a supernova that is 10 billion light years away possessing a red shift of z = 7. At this red shift the supernova is moving away at a speed of 0.98 c and if the supernova originally had a frequency of 500 THz by the time the light from that galaxy reaches us, it has a frequency of 75 THz (squarely in the invisible part of the infrared) and a wave length of 4000 nm approx. The question is these supernovae, that are difficult enough to see under normal circumstances are not in fact visible at all! Instead they are replaced by a strong infrared presence. I think there will be almost Universal agreement that it is not possible to determine the age of anything using an infrared signal. There are far too many sources. It could literally be anything, an exploding star, a nascent galaxy and so on.

My point is how can one complicate an already complicated scenario and then quote such conclusive results?

 

[billslugg]

"I think there will be almost Universal agreement that it is not possible to determine the age of anything using an infrared signal." - Jzz

Here is how we do it:
- We look at local bright sources of H-alpha line
- As we look at dimmer objects we notice the line is shifted redder
- Looking at the dimmest objects, the H-alpha line is in the infra red.
- We know how far the objects are due to their brightness
- We know how fast they are going due to the location of the H-alpha line
- Using those two numbers we can calculate how old they are

 

[Jzz]

Here is how we do it:
- We look at local bright sources of H-alpha line
- As we look at dimmer objects we notice the line is shifted redder
- Looking at the dimmest objects, the H-alpha line is in the infra red.
- We know how far the objects are due to their brightness
- We know how fast they are going due to the location of the H-alpha line
- Using those two numbers we can calculate how old they are.

 

[Harry Costas]

The big Bang Theory has been used to push a narrative.
That narrative became strong within governments and educational institutions.

If you did not agree with the BBT you would lose your job or funding.

So! people started to agree with the MOB.

BBT theory is backed by opinions dressed in white cloths.

The universe cannot have age.

Matter/Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

but! we do know from thousands of scientific papers that matter can be changed from one phase to another.

We can date those changes.

The candle motions are of interest in understanding how compact matter can create such images, and we can estimate the aging process.

Should not be used as evidence to support the BBT.

 

[Bernd Huber]

By the way, you all, there has been further evidence in support of (or very suitably compatible with) my neutrino-based dark matter explanation theory, namely from a paper by Lu Yin and his team:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.20038v1
"The three dark energy models above have been constrained by the previous research [33–36]. In this work, we are more interested in the evolution of the three models in the local Universe, so we fit free parameters by comparing the data from baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) [63–66] and Type Ia supernovae (SNIa) [67, 68]. The best-fit results are shown in Tab. II. H0 value from the model and the ICPL model are 70.6986+0.2639 −0.2601km/s/Mpc and 70.9338+0.2549 −0.2515km/s/Mpc. The fitting result of γ is a negative number −0.0078+0.0192 −0.0118, which means that a high possibility of the energy transfer from dark matter to dark energy."

Also, here's a quick summary on the proposed new phenomenological possibility and its origin of emergence as additional element available for the universe to play with and incorporate into all kinds of dynamical contexts to allow for otherwise unexplainable observational results:

Extremely dense, from gravitationally perturbed black holes ejected neutrino streams shortly afterward collapsing into hollow neutrino swarms or shells appear to be the best fit for dark matter since neutrinos don't clump together but are super-fluid, don't interact with light, are more abundantly present in the universe than photons and are the only known particles besides photons that fill the cosmos by moving at relativistic speeds and are nearly evenly distributed as cosmic web throughout the cosmos (as dark energy is estimated to be) while at the same time aggregating at (super-massive) black holes (as dark energy also is estimated to be), and should help explain either in general or (possibly) in some cases the following:
(i) vanishing (e.g. super-massive) "black holes",
(ii) some gas planets' atmospheric super-rotation faster than the planets' rotation,
(iii) egg-shaped planets like WASP-103b,
(iv) dormant black holes within the pair-instability gap of black hole sizes, e.g. in close binary systems like LB-1,
(v) planet 9,
(vi) lit up interstellar gas filaments across our galaxy,
(vii) low density black holes with impossibly low mass,
(viii) super puff gas planets like WASP 107b and HAT-P-32 b,
(ix) black holes' "hair",
(x) black holes "spitting" material out of them,
(xi) retrograde and generally non-prograde planets like Venus, Uranus and Pluto and HAT-P-7b,
(xii) the (primordial & stellar) black hole frequency & size development curve matching the initial & the renewed acceleration behavior of the universe's expansion since more stars finally start collapsing to black holes to catch more of the inter-galactic neutrino "rivers",
(xiii) the unusual occlusion patterns of EPIC 204278916 and Tabby's star,
(xiv) the unusual behavior of Gaia BH1 & Gaia BH2 & HD106906,
(xv) what provided earth, Saturn's moons and Jupiter's moons its water,
(xvi) suddenly vanishing "planets",
(xvii) massive, extended ring systems around planets such as Quaoar,
(xviii) planets orbiting stars "impossibly close to them",
(xix) planets like HD 20782 with wide, egg-shaped orbits around stars,
(xx) extremely fast rotating planets,
(xxi) unusually low density super-earth planets like TOI-561b,
(xxii) ultra-diffuse galaxies
(xxiii) galaxies without dark matter,
(xxiv) stars suddenly disappearing, like a star in the galaxy PHL 293B and about 800 other stars,
(xxv) egg-shaped stars like Regulus,
(xxvi) stars quickly going supernova twice,
(xxvii) extreme cepheid stars,
(xxviii) galaxies consisting almost entirely of dark matter,
(xxix) "impossibly massive" brown dwarfs like TOI-148b, TOI-746b, TOI-587b, and TOI-681b, that should be stars,
(xxx) earth's 5 great extinction events,
(xxxi) galaxy cluster collisions such as the Bullet cluster, MACS J0025.4-1222, and Abell 520,
(xxxii) the axes of super spirals that are orthogonal to their galactic planes having orthogonal alignment to the filaments of the cosmic web connecting to them,
(xxxiii) galaxies' dark matter halos,
(xxxiv) the around each other spiraling motion of near frontally connecting filaments consisting of to each other directed neutrino streams part of the cosmic web,
(xxxv) the (for the needed neutrino swarm masses fitting amount of) mass loss of merging black holes, such as for the events (with the amount of the lost mass added in terms of multiples of the solar mass in brackets) GW150914 (3.1 +0.4/-0.4), GW151012 (15.2 +2.0/-1.1), GW151226 (1.0 +0.1/-0.2), GW170104 (2.2 +0.5/-0.5), GW170608 (0.9 +0.0/-0.1), GW170729 (4.8 +1.7/-1.7), GW170809 (2.7 +0.6/-0.6), GW170814 (2.7 +0.4/-0.3), GW170817 (= 0.04), GW170818 (2.7 +0.5/-0.5), GW170823 (3.3 +0.9/-0.8), GW190521 (7.6 +2.2/-1.9),
(xxxvi) Yu Lin's team's recent research results (likely based on my theory) indicating a strong link between dark matter and dark energy in the form of energy transfer from the former to the latter (as it should be in my theory),
especially if neutron stars were to lose much of their mass in the form of relativistic neutrinos that they cannot hold onto, from the process of rapidly re-forming & decaying nuclei to provide more cosmic neutrinos than the anticipated amount.

---
And the following is an updated repetition of the content covered in my initial post:

On dark matter & dark energy:

I figured that event horizons don't exist and black holes create (by decay & rapid rebuild of unstable nuclei) neutrinos caught in them and catch them from galaxies. And that at perturbations of black holes, they can leak neutrinos in extremely dense packages (which historically in the case of neutron star merger events, where continuous waves of neutrinos are radiated away, mistakenly has been mis-identified as gravitational wave energy, for which in 1993 Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor even were awarded the Nobel prize, which as concept was carried over to black holes and - alongside the false belief in the existence of event horizons and the Tremaine-Gunn bound - probably held people off from doubting their interpretation), gravitationally bound to each other, as streams that can turn into neutrino swarms, shells. And this means that gravitational wave energy either doesn't exist (as some physicists already believed) or constitutes just a tiny portion of the total mass loss of black holes when they merge. The exchange of neutrinos between galaxies then explains the dark energy phenomenon as internal pressure between galaxies with the galactic amounts of them washing through and around them. They transfer their impulse when they land in other galaxies' black hole regions. And when they fly around galaxies they apply a swing by to pull them away, like gravitational lensing, but for neutrinos. The in galaxies contained and by black holes spit out neutrinos then form swarms of various sizes that can explain several phenomena. Such neutrino swarms can be unstable with respect to close encounters of other massive objects that can make them leak neutrinos, with the remaining ones being too few to hold together and dispersing, implying galaxies' dark matter halos consisting of neutrinos from all the neutrino swarms in them that have bursted in the past, but also neutron stars' neutrinos and from black holes leaked neutrino streams that were incapable of gravitationally holding together.

Super puff planets then that are "too large, too low density gas giants" can be explained as being neutrino swarms that caught gas & material nearby stars. That process can also slow them down at the approach of proto-stellar discs (without being pushed on outwards by star winds either) and end up being bound to stars in binary systems mimicking black holes but being dormant. Neutrinos have no charge and are naturally super-fluid as they barely interact with anything, and so they basically have no friction applying to them. They are also abundant throughout the cosmos which basically no other particle besides the photon is, and are otherwise mainly found in black holes, as studies indicate of what dark matter & energy is. egg-shaped planets then can also be neutrino swarms that caught material that is sensitive to star winds while the neutrino swarm isn't at all, and so the different behavior can lead to such egg shape. Planet 9 might then (if it exists) most likely be a neutrino swarm, too. It would then have accumulated gas and comets and asteroids flying around, through it, and is in million years long orbit part of an (as such then due to extremely low orbit curvature hard to distinguish from an isolated star system) binary system with the sun delivering ice to earth regularly. And it would be a prime candidate for the ice delivered to the gas planets Saturn and Jupiter, explaining their roughly 200 ice moons. Tabby's star behavior with the irregular occlusion can also be explained with such neutrino swarm. And the same goes for suddenly "vanishing black holes" that aren't black holes (as they lack the charged core component of them besides being similar as both have neutrinos swarming them). As neutrinos are spit out by black holes, they are slowed or cooled down from their relativistic speeds since they have to escape the gravitational well. Our galaxy and others have filaments of temporarily glowing bits and pieces of interstellar gas, which are explainable via neutrino streams leaked from black holes as light would accompany them. Therefore all evidence supports my theory that event horizons don't exist (as Einstein & Hawking also believed) and that dark matter and energy are neutrinos.

Empirical observations and experimental tests are what decide the chance for validity of a mathematical frame work meant to describe the physical side of the real world, and so this argument together with basic generally accepted assumptions thought to hold true for the entire universe should suffice. However, Einstein and Hawking (and surely many others) didn't believe in the existence of event horizons, and on the event horizon Wikipedia page, at the very top (summarizing) paragraph, one can find Hawking being cited stating only apparent but no actual event horizons should exist, and the source [2] on the page links to a model description associated to this interpretation, and therefore it is necessary for correct models to have all Schwarzschild radius calculations result in a negative radius (and even in vacuum, light possibly might not quite move with the maximal possible speed). Pauli's exclusion principle prohibits the formation of infinite mass-densities as well (which applies to the mistakenly presumed space-time singularity at the Big Bang, too, and density limitations of the material at the Big Bang, in contradiction to the standard model), and eventually for the behavior relevant internal neutrino pressure in black holes for if they hadn't far enough yet approached running out of material fuel from which to produce them, too. Besides this, a general common pattern so far among particle classes such as (Up, Charm, Top) and (Down, Strange, Bottom) for quarks, and (Electron, Muon, Tauon) for leptons, as well as all their antimatter counterpart particle classes is that the heavier particles are unstable, and so if such pattern were to extend to neutrino-like particles, the same may hold true there, speaking against WIMPs (and the like) and for neutrinos. Only the Tremaine Gunn Bound, an estimate - relying on & based on the for fermions such as neutrinos applying Pauli exclusion principle as well as the assumed effective radius of the in flavor/type oscillating neutrinos - about the hypothetical maximal possible neutrino density in a given region of space, were to remain speaking against neutrinos as dark matter and dark energy, but there's no observational confirmation of such limit and it may be far too low for various thinkable plausible reasons such as there possibly existing more state determining parameters for neutrinos, and with each further parameter, the number of (based on associated exclusion rules) stackable neutrinos may grow exponentially and allow for sufficiently heavy neutrino clouds.

And so I think I have sufficient evidentially supported reason from several qualitatively different phenomenological sources to justify my extreme confidence in having solved the dark matter mystery, but I'd be most interested in as many provided theoretical or observational counter-arguments or discrepancies, incompatibilities as possible, to help myself on how the theory might need to be adjusted.

As separate bonus, here's some solution considerations on the Cosmology Crisis:

In our universe with finite amount of matter and no space-time singularity at the Big Bang but with infinitely expanded space at all times, even before the Big Bang, the Big Bang happened at a specific location in space and was a hyper-massive rotation-ellipsoid-shaped, extremely fast rotating (which explains the direction-dependent Hubble constants, i.e. the Hubble tension, namely depending on the angle between equator & pole of the black hole and the associated minimum required internal pressure to eject matter with different resulting propagation speeds & accelerations) black hole (without event horizon, like Einstein & Hawking have predicted it, and thus without singularity through infinite mass density and without information paradox) either with rupture of quark pairs (and thus the numerous, sufficient for the entire mass of the universe, creation of new quark pairs) or endotherm fusion processes towards super-heavy nuclei, either due to higher proton & neutron count or due to Top & Bottom quarks being part of nuclei rather than Up & Down quarks, over-coming the paces of decays of unstable heavy nuclei to eventually finally lead to an exotherm fusion process and rupture of the entire black hole at some point as a whole (alongside an un-curving process of space-time due to rapid mass-density reduction, allowing and explaining effective superluminal speeds during the early expansion), which also explains the baryonic asymmetry (because even in a previous universe cycle that's initially balanced between matter & antimatter, but with fluctuations, black holes tend to form only in regions of greater imbalance and mix their contents highly compressed for astronomically long times), the (observed by scientists) uniform rotational movement of all galaxies in the observable universe (by conservation or at least transmission of the angular momentum from the compact Big Bang black hole to the gigantic far out spread matter content in our universe), the big filaments & walls & arcs (logically more likely to be found in equatorial directions), the (super-)voids like the cold spot in the cosmic microwave background radiation (more likely to be found in polar directions) and much more all together in one fell swoop.

Still believing in the Standard Model of Cosmology despite its clear multiple falsification by astronomical observations in 12 different ways (Great Filaments/Walls/Arcs, (Super-)Voids and the cold cosmic microwave background spot, Hubble tension, baryon asymmetry, uniform spin/rotation of all galaxies in the observable universe around the so-called axis of evil special and a point in space that is the associated center, possibly where the so-called "scary barbie" is located, the slightly anisotropic quadrupolar pattern of rotational spin orientations throughout all galaxies in the observable universe, infinite mass-density singularity & information paradox & causal 1-way disconnection at black holes if event horizons exist, event horizon passings in finite time despite unboundedly diverging gravitational time dilation & the contradictory impossibility of outside observers being able to observe such passings, and the favored orientation that minimal non-symmetric tetrahedra consisting of 4 to each other nearest galaxies each are directed toward as minimal objects that the concept of chirality applies to), that is the real daring hypothesis here compared to my theory, because it can explain these otherwise unexplained mysteries "in one fell swoop" without having to introduce/invent new effects for them (except for the eventual rupturing of hyper-massive black Big Bang holes - similar to the Big Rip model for the matter that must be sufficient for an entire universe - but think about it: it's better to switch from this dozen of problems for 1 remaining question or problem that can certainly still be solved by subsequent research, rather than throwing away a theory that is so much more plausible, almost perfect, just because instead of 12 problems, 1 new one remains to be explained). Very early formed galaxies may then also rather lie within or at an angle close to the rotational ellipsoid Big Bang black hole's equatorial plane where lower material expansion speeds would allow earlier clumping.

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello Bernd

Lots of reading and interesting.

In a few words, can you get to the point, please.

Particularly for those who do not understand.

 

[Bernd Huber]

Hello Harry Costas, yes, sure, I can try to summarize it.

I figured that event horizons don't exist and black holes create (by decay & rapid rebuild of unstable nuclei) neutrinos caught in them and catch them from galaxies. And that at perturbations of black holes, they can leak neutrinos in extremely dense packages (which historically in the case of neutron star merger events, where continuous waves of neutrinos are radiated away, mistakenly has been mis-identified as gravitational wave energy, for which in 1993 Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor even were awarded the Nobel prize, which as concept was carried over to black holes and - alongside the false belief in the existence of event horizons and the Tremaine-Gunn bound - probably held people off from doubting their interpretation), gravitationally bound to each other, as streams that can turn into neutrino swarms, shells. And this means that gravitational wave energy either doesn't exist (as some physicists already believed) or constitutes just a tiny portion of the total mass loss of black holes when they merge.

The exchange of neutrinos between galaxies then explains the dark energy phenomenon as internal pressure between galaxies with the galactic amounts of them washing through and around them. They transfer their impulse when they land in other galaxies' black hole regions. The (primordial & stellar) black hole frequency & size development curve matches the initial & the renewed acceleration behavior of the universe's expansion since more stars finally start collapsing to black holes to catch more of the inter-galactic neutrino "rivers" to be pushed by them and carry their galaxies with them. And when the neutrinos fly around galaxies they apply a swing by to pull them away, like gravitational lensing, but for neutrinos. The in galaxies contained and by black holes spit out neutrinos then form swarms of various sizes that can explain several phenomena. Such neutrino swarms can be unstable with respect to close encounters of other massive objects that can make them leak neutrinos, with the remaining ones being too few to hold together and dispersing.

Classical WIMP-based dark matter theories and MOND have 7 and 12 sigma against each other by now (

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm2l9uaUb_E
), and the ALPS-II detector that will be upgraded in 2024 will soon rule out axion-based dark matter theories as well, namely by moving the exclusion boundary in the parameter space of eligible particle type cases further away by a factor of one thousand compared to where it currently is, because those axion-based dark matter theories are incapable of explaining neutrino-swarm-like planet- and star-sized dark matter phenomena, and a whole mix of different types of axions would be required for this dark matter theory anyway.

Meanwhile, Lu Yin's team's recent research results (likely based on my theory) are indicating a strong link between dark matter and dark energy in the form of energy transfer from the former to the latter (just as it should be in my theory), providing further strong support for my theory:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.20038v1

 

[Harry Costas]

Science is science, sometimes our opinions limit our ability to go and search where no scientists have search before.

We all have tunnel vision in one way or another.

I know I have, and sometime narrow minded.

I keep on reminding myself, we only know a scratch of information with limited evidence and lots of opinions.

Dark Matter in the mix of things is Dark Energy.

When I look at Transients of Condensates from Neutrino to Axion to Partonic to Quark to Neutron matter to atomic matter.

I see Matter and Energy in a dense of compaction.


[Submitted on 11 Jul 2023 (v1), last revised 14 Jul 2023 (this version, v2)]

Axions and Cosmic Magnetic Fields​

George B. Field, Sean M. Carroll

We argue that if axions are the dark matter, their coupling to electromagnetism results in exponential growth of a helical magnetic field when the axion field first rolls down its potential. After an inverse cascade, the relevant length scales to day are of order 10-100 kpc, of astrophysical interest. Our mechanism for allowing the field to grow relies on a nuance of MHD. Faraday's Law says that an electric field is needed to create a magnetic field. Previous authors relied on conventional Ohm's law to calculate E, but the resistivity is negligible and therefore they assume E is as well. We use a modified Ohm's Law that includes the effects of self-induction in limiting the current driven by a given E, which allows a magnetic field to grow.

 

[Bernd Huber]

By the way, there has come up more observational evidence in support of my dark matter and dark energy theory, namely covered in Anton Petrov's video, titled "Strange Dark Matter Discoveries: Weird Blobs, Failed Galaxies and Haloes":

These at 3:35 depicted bright, blue (though in reality invisible, of course) dark matter blobs with extensions of roughly the size of globular star clusters or dwarf-galaxies should be compact (but rather thinned out compared to far smaller sized variants from them that come from stellar black holes) swarms of in perpetual motion superfluid neutrinos (which constitutes all dark matter that exists), and my quite recent dark matter theory predicts the existence of these kinds of objects for various sizes (including ones mimicking black holes, with sizes within the pair-instability gap of black holes).

These gravitationally bound neutrino swarms are in my theory theorized to be produced by black holes when 2 of them collide with each other such that the over billions of years spherically around those black holes aggregated, trapped cosmic and internally emitted neutrinos at by then extremely high densities are leaked (in the form of very dense neutrino streams that quickly gravitationally collapse into swarms of continually moving neutrinos) at the far outer edges of such colliding black holes as they are accelerating towards each other by spiraling inward to each other.

One can visualize roughly what this process should look like by imagining 2 glasses of water (representing a black hole, each) being moved towards each other with the same spiraling and accelerating motion that would apply to black holes by their mutual gravitation, to then think of the water droplets that would be spilled from each glass of water (if they were about of the same size) at their outer edges, and with the spilled water droplets representing (due to differential gravitation) leaked neutrino streams collapsing into compact neutrino swarms.

Whenever similarly massive (stellar or super-massive) black holes collide, then always from both of them, such neutrino swarms should be leaked, with similar masses and in rather point-symmetric manner regarding the timing and direction of leaked neutrino swarms at such events.

And so for the situation that we see at 3:35, my interpretation of this would be that for the lower left 2 blue blobs, due to their rather close distance to each other, as well as their visible significant deviation from perfect ball shapes (with tiny separated blue regions distributed around them, probably rather located behind them, e.g. if those are constituted by slower up-leftwards moving neutrinos from the original neutrino streams), as well as the elongation of both of those blobs being rather collinear, so in the same direction, and with those blue blobs of invisible masses both being located on the line that connects them that is also the line of the direction towards which they are stretched, I think that all of this means, indicates that those 2 lower blue blobs come from the same source that created them in the same event, namely the collision of super-massive black holes at which 1 vast neutrino stream with fluctuating (generally extremely high) neutrino density along its extension ended up splitting into separate gravitationally bound neutrino swarms due to individual gravitational collapse.

Due to their asymmetric shape and the tiny blobs nearby them, they are probably not that old, meaning that the black hole collision event that created them shouldn't have happened that long ago. Therefore it might be possible to find another blob (or multiple) from the (supposed) black hole collision event creating them, if one were to look further for them in the down-rightward direction, basically nearby the line that they seem to move on, but in the opposite direction.

Now, for the upper and rightward blue blobs, since they look much more close to perfectly ball shaped, and are (already) smaller, more compact, I think this means that they were created in isolation, individually, and are are older or that they were ejected at slower speeds with which they'd move.

And while both of them also have (also quite ball-shaped) tiny blue blobs of invisible matter nearby them, I think that those are smaller fractions of neutrino swarms that did split off from them and since then have been orbiting them (and in the upper blue blob's case probably in clock-wise orientation due to the little tails that the tiny blue blobs surrounding the larger blob have).

Generally speaking, I think that by identification of existence, position, velocity, acceleration of all such large-scale dark matter (i.e. neutrino) swarm objects in the close vicinity of galaxies (especially the more of them exist), they should be able to tell a lot about the history of the interactions of such galaxy's (or galaxies') super-massive black hole(s) with other super-massive black holes if one tries to extrapolate their dynamic backward in time, together with the assumption that these massive neutrino swarms were to have all been created at black hole collisions, such that one possibly could find out the order in which they were created, and from which black holes and with what directions of ejection as initial (massive) neutrino streams.

And so one might be able to find more out about the history of the region around a galaxy the more of these objects exist there, and they might also be the "seeds" of the formation of some globular star clusters, as they should attract and accumulate interstellar hydrogen gas from their surrounding regions, too.
And another video by Anton Petrov, titled "Extreme Example of a Cotton Candy Planet That Has No Explanation":

I do have an explanation for these kinds of exoplanet actually, namely that according to my dark matter theory, black holes aggregate and produce neutrinos that they keep around them at extremely high densities compared to outer space and that at black hole collisions, they leak portions of their neutrinos in the form of streams evading the gravitational pull (and for a vague visualization of that, think of 2 round glasses of water representing similarly massive black holes, and then moving the glasses of water around each other in the manner and with the speed that colliding black holes would exhibit, and considering the spilling of some of the water in the process), and then due to the extremely high densities, these neutrino streams collapse under their own weight, but since neutrinos are super-fluid, friction-less, they form a swarm of neutrinos that constantly keep on streaming in various directions around the gravitational center.

And now, when such a neutrino swarm approaches a star so that it barely collides with it (which is easier for a neutrino swarm since neutrinos ignore star winds' pressure), the neutrino swarm can pick up and extract a portion of the plasma at the surface of the star and be slowed down in the process due to now carrying more mass with it, and hence sticking around the star to form a binary system or become a planet-like object around the star. And since such event can happen at any late stage of a star, this can explain the still hot temperature of such very hot neutrino swarm gas planets.

 

[Bernd Huber]

I mean the modeled intergalactic dark matter blobs distribution map there makes them look rather non-smooth with edges and corners (given the super-fluidity of dark matter, i.e. neutrinos), but I suppose that this mainly comes from numerical modeling limitations. But yes, in general, the droplets shape of many smaller blobs there (still larger extended than galaxies, coming from the collision of supermassive black holes with for billions of years aggregated neutrinos swirling around them and being leaked as during the acceleration phase before collision, some aren't held onto anymore) does fit well to my dark matter theory. When colliding black holes are of similar mass or size, they should both leak extreme amounts of neutrinos, and otherwise, if the mass difference is large, then only 1 of them, the less massive one, and it then should be more accelerated and leak neutrinos at higher speeds, and hence likely at narrower angle of the opening of the neutrino leakage.

Like here at a time-stamp 4 seconds prior, at the bottom right (assuming brighter regions refer to lower dark matter densities than darker ones), the foot-like-looking blob at the bottom right that consists of non-homogeneous dark matter density (a bright and hence already more distributed, older, already broader and further from the "cone of the shoe" in the background spread part at the bottom, and then likely from a separate event/origin deep in the region to which the bright blob reaches into, there's a stream going upwards likely from a non-balanced-masses-blackhole-collision, still fresh, dense, with dark tone in the model) should be 2 separate, both 1-sided black hole neutrino ejections. And the tiny one further in the back just leftwards next to it should have the origin of the leaked neutrinos at its narrow top with its gravitationally once about halfway through rightwards bent cone-like shape, and should also still be rather fresh, with high density, dark blue tone.

For the largest blob in the center here, one can see 2 "spikes", cones on the right end, which should be the starting points (or rather somewhat ahead, off-set from that) of the neutrino leakage origin at colliding supermassive black holes. This large central blob seems to consist of a super-position of many in the same direction (already far in the past) stretched and in the same direction widening cones. For the larger blobs, if there's stellar black holes (e.g. if there's some small galaxies), then the many more stellar black holes than supermassive ones of course can also undergo collisions and spread out dense packages of neutrinos contributing to the overall shape, also allowing for dark matter / neutrino halos. Based on the sizes to which those neutrino leakages have stretched already, and how narrow the cones are (which should correspond to the speed of the colliding black holes and then also their leaked neutrinos), one should be able to make estimates on their age, i.e. when they have been leaked at a black hole collision. And at the back-end of the neutrino leakage cones, so at the spike, that's where the slowest neutrinos should be and if anywhere, then there, their mutual gravitation should allow for super-fluid but gravitationally bound, dynamical but collapsed neutrino swarms to form. And for stellar black holes' collisions, the whole neutrino blob development process should be rather analogous, except massively down-scaled (to a few star masses rather than millions or billions of them, but also to much shorter distances).

Furthermore, on the right, one can see a vertically extended, bright-tone and already quite large (both indicating it's older, less dense) dark matter structure with 3 nodes and it's a bit hard to see for the node in the middle, but they all seem to have the origins of neutrino leakage from black hole collisions at the tighter, narrowing down spots in the front (at this view, or on the left a bit later into the video) of the surface, with the neutrinos all flowing in about the same direction, to the back, and the events seem to have happened around the same time, too, based on the sizes. The way these leaked massive amounts of highly densely packed neutrinos from black holes can extend so vastly across space should have its reason in the leaked neutrinos (all slowed down from their initial very high speeds, by exiting the black holes' deep gravitational wells) having a wide speed distribution, and so the more time passes, the larger the distances build up between the fastest and faster neutrinos and the slower and slowest of them moving about in the same direction, while the density declines. Though the neutrino leakage origin of the top one might be on the back, actually.

Then at this timestamp 6 seconds prior to the reference at the top, on the top left, one can see 2 to each other opposed, rather symmetrical blobs of dark matter which should have a shared source from the same black hole collision, and in this case of rather similarly massive supermassive black holes, so that it'd not be just a 1-sided ejection but both eject masses of neutrinos, and are both less accelerated, not allowing for as easy of a leakage, implying that the speed window for leaked neutrinos should be smaller, and the leaked neutrinos should move at slower speeds, rather than fast ones leading to a far extended cone shape (like for that slightly smaller, upwards opening, dark blue tone cone in the background beneath that symmetrical structure which likely comes from a 1-sided acceleration of a small black hole by a more massive one, which has less neutrinos to leak, hence the smaller size), and the slower speeds in the case of the symmetrical blobs with cones pointing to a center between them should allow the overall gravitation from their extreme amounts of neutrinos to act longer on them to pull on them and become more round in shape if there is tiny galaxies or heavy objects in the region they move into and bend/wrap around to change the direction of the neutrino flow.