Resolution of the Dark Matter Mystery

[Harry Costas]

I do read what you have written.
In one of your writings, you said Black Holes do not exist.
Black Holes are defined by two explanations.

1) Classical Black Hole with a singularity.
Where all matter is pulled in and nothing can escape. Forming an Event Horizon.
The universe is infinite and if this was so, then all matter would be in a Black Hole.
This is not the case.

2) Mimic Black Hole with dipolar vector fields expelling matter while still pulling in matter.
The pulling forces are strong enough stopping even EMR from escaping. Mimicking Black Hole properties.
The vortex that expels matter also seeds stars and may explain the formation of Spiral and Elliptical and other forms of galaxies.

 

[Bernd Huber]

Yes, and neither of these kinds of black holes exist in our universe. They are based on and rely on incorrect model assumptions that contradict multiple qualitatively different observations (such as black holes gravitationally acting on objects around them, and suddenly vanishing black holes, all galaxies of our universe not being together in a black hole despite all of the matter having been extremely close to each other near the phase of the big bang for the false explanation of which the superluminal inflation of space itself ended up being invented, and black holes that lose mass at black hole collisions, and black holes spitting out objects, including cases where it suddenly happens with years of delay; Anton Petrov covered many scientific studies of such observations) as well as logical contradictions (of which I have explained some in my original post already).

Furthermore (but this wouldn't be a science-based argument), even Stephen Hawking long before myself proposed that black holes that prevent light from reaching out of them cannot exist, and he's cited on that in the very top paragraph of the event horizon Wikipedia page:

Event horizon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"One of the leading developers of theories to describe black holes, Stephen Hawking, suggested that an apparent horizon should be used instead of an event horizon, saying, "Gravitational collapse produces apparent horizons but no event horizons." He eventually concluded that "the absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes – in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity."[2][3]

Any object approaching the horizon from the observer's side appears to slow down, never quite crossing the horizon.[4]"

[2] Hawking, Stephen W. (2014). "Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes". arXiv:1401.5761v1 [hep-th].
[3] Curiel, Erik (2019). "The many definitions of a black hole". Nature Astronomy. 3: 27–34. arXiv:1808.01507. Bibcode:2019NatAs...3...27C. doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0602-1. S2CID 119080734.
[4] Chaisson, Eric J. (1990). Relatively Speaking: Relativity, Black Holes, and the Fate of the Universe. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 213. ISBN 978-0393306750.

Given this context, I wonder if your criticizing of my take that event horizons don't exist was based on scientific argumentation or a prejudice with respect to of me presumed lack of authority on such matters, and in the latter case, I wonder if your judgement would change based on the further context I provided.

There's no infinite mass-density singularities either. They contradict Pauli's exclusion principle at least, and so one were to have to forego either of these 2 concepts, but for mathematical modeling, such singularities would also be problematic and rather indicate the existence of a mistake in the model than being a feature when the math breaks down.

 

[Atlan0001]

"Relativity predicts its own break down" (its own collapse and downfall). Try to guess at least one observable -- well almost observable -- place of break down (collapse / downfall).

With it, I would suppose, breakdown of complexity of faceted dimensionality. We observe a relative location for it, a relative distance to it, but it isn't there and finite, or it isn't all there and finite. Its apparent dimensionality goes away into dimensionless, relatively speaking. Infinity is dimensionless. So is zero (most particularly including fundamental binary base2's '0' (null unity)). So is Nietzsche's "Abyss" ("Stare into the Abyss, the Abyss will stare back into you").

 

[Bernd Huber]

Here are a few more attempts to explain some of the structures from the calculated distributions of dark matter at 13:36 in the previously in a previous post of mine linked ARTE video, using my theory:

In the following, yellow dots mark the suspected locations of massive structures in space (such as star clusters), and red dots mark supermassive black holes (whereby two black holes are always involved in every neutrino ejection), with dark red dots denoting the locations of the same black holes further back in time during the neutrino ejection, and the green arrows indicate the course of the flow (at the edge of the distribution of dark matter, i.e. the neutrinos) of the fastest neutrinos flowing in the given direction (where there are probably always both more and less slowed down neutrinos in every direction in the cone of the neutrino release shock-wave, so that their distribution stretches out over time in order to form such overall structures in the moment of recording) , and with the orange lines I tried to illustrate the temporal evolution, i.e. the propagation of neutrino shock waves. With the pairs of red arrows I then tried in some cases (namely where this seemed clearer from the distribution of dark matter) to indicate the orientation of the spiral movement of the colliding black holes (namely either clockwise or counterclockwise) , as well as the difference in the strength of the acceleration of the black holes. Overall, it seems to be a region in which a galaxy cluster collision took place, which in my opinion also fits with the fact that the directions in which the tips at the ends of almost all blue structures point are quite (anti-)parallel to each other. In addition, the probability that such growing (deformed) cones overlap close to the center of a collision of galaxy clusters should be greatest in comparison to the periphery around it, which seems to be the case.

2 massive black holes that eject mass in the form of neutrinos several times (probably 3 times) when they approached. The oldest ejection of neutrinos only has a truncated stub far away from the pointy starting point and probably led to the largest neutrino cloud (because most neutrinos were present at the beginning), and after that the ejections become smaller in volume and more sharply pointed, and not yet with the tip of the starting point cut off as much. So the location of the black holes has probably changed over time, but the orientations of the tips already seem to be consistently quite parallel to one another. In addition, from a different viewing direction you can see the point symmetry quite well (except for the difference in the mass of the black holes and thus also the neutrino cloud sized they eject):

But if for one black hole of the two black holes the arc of ejection of neutrinos (with respect to a perspective) is curved in one direction, then the ejection arc of the other black hole should be curved in the opposite direction, because in the phase of the ejection, the other black hole is on the other side and is still pulling on the escaping neutrinos.

 

[Bernd Huber]

For the case of this dark matter structure, which appears to have been formed in 3 steps consisting of collision-like swing-bys each from the same pair of super-massive black holes, i.e. the case linked below, I have an (older) Simulation (by NASA) of the collision of our galaxy with the Andromeda galaxy as a reference for comparison (namely this one:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMNlt2FnHDg
), and noticed that in the case of this one simulation the super-massive black holes at the center also essentially collide 3 times (almost), with a much longer delay between the first and second collision than between the second and third collision, which seems to imply that my interpretation of the formation history of the blue structure made of dark matter (or neutrinos) seems to fit quite well in this case from a qualitative point of view, because that is exactly what was assumed there due to the superposition structure of the entire structure made up of (quite) convex partial sub-structures contained therein.

 

[Bernd Huber]

And I just now realized yet another major evidential support for my dark matter theory!

Also, I suppose since galaxies carry around a whole lot of stellar black holes, too, which may come into high speed collisions to some extent at galaxy collisions, too, there should be a lot of smaller scale, much faster and hence steeper cone-shaped (and maybe already linear) neutrino stream ejections all around such huge neutrino blasts from supermassive black holes at collisions, but I guess due to the smaller scale they'd be harder to localize and due to the faster speeds, they should stretch much further but also move much quicker out or away from the galaxy collision scenery. And I suppose that neutrino swarms that are still (barely) gravitationally bound to a galaxy (in similar manner as globular star clusters), if they move around the galactic center at far away distances and in rather eccentric, elliptical, huge orbits, or in spiral galaxies when they are accelerating back to the galactic disc, then (analogously to what happens to globular star clusters) they should get stretched or "spaghettified" due to differential gravitation, turning them back into stream shapes, especially when they are passing through the disc and in orthogonal direction to it. And when they are moving through interstellar gas (so probably when they come closer to a galaxy), despite the very low interaction rate of neutrinos, they might cause Cherenkov-radiation-like radiation in the gas as they move through it, since at least the motion speed of the neutrinos through the gas would be different from that of relativistic neutrinos, namely far slower, any this way, one might be able to confirm that dark matter is neutrinos.

And there is observational evidence that this happens:

"Strange Filament Structures Found in Milky Way's Center":

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xt6OKey7OQ


"Mysterious Filament Structures Stretching Toward Milky Way Black Hole":

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3r6JjrgfdY


"1000 Of Unexplained Radio Filaments Found In Milky Way's Center":

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h59uLPBcXgs


"Turns Out Magnetic Filaments In The Milky Way Are Different Compared to Other Galaxies":

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjM-iyTYaQ4


It might be that not all of these correspond to such phenomenon about accelerated, gravitationally bound, dynamic swarms of super-fluid neutrinos, but some actually could! Since the Milky Way galaxy is a large spiral galaxy, a so-called Super Spiral, chances are that it has some smaller galaxy collisions in its past, and there might be some neutrino swarms still around from such events as remnants, orbiting our galaxy alike globular star clusters. However, for compact neutrino swarms spaghettified back into streams as they accelerate to a galactic disc while orbiting the galactic center at huge distances, the light takes some time from there to reach us and so these invisible neutrino strings or streams should be ahead of where one sees them, and I guess the direction of their motion may be identifiable by observing from which direction these glowing filaments start disappearing or start or continue to glow. And I suppose that the fact that many of these glowing filaments are oriented towards the central super-massive black hole could be explained or have its reason in the density of stellar black holes (alongside stars) in the central galactic bulge being higher and those black holes would be closer to the super-massive black hole in the center, so that at galactic collision events in the past, when the centers of previous galaxies (nearly) crash into each other, many stellar black holes in the region may come close to each other, too, and eject neutrino streams in the process accordingly.

Also, for the thumbnail of the 3rd video (from above), that far more huge vertical filament in the middle compared to all the others may actually be from a proto-supermassive-black-hole (of our galaxy) as remnant from an ancient collision.

Furthermore, at 0:47 and at 5:40 into the 3rd video from above, one can see that the vertical filaments are the longest, which would fit to the hypothesis that they are caused by the motion of some matter through them (and in general around the galaxy), since such matter would be accelerated and stretched the most in the direction towards the galactic plane (rather than from 1 side to the other, through the plane, with more and more stars of the disc pulling on it from behind it). And also, even if the stretched neutrino swarms may just be of about the size of stars, due to super-fluidity and therefore 0 viscosity and the very high sensitivity to differential gravitation, unlike for stars, despite the comparatively small sizes, it could be plausible that these objects can be stretched while at the same time, stars that accelerate into the galactic disc may not (or not nearly as much) be stretched. Additionally, at 2:49 into the same video, the vertically aligned pair of glowing filaments in the top left window appear to behave like 2 streams of matter gravitationally attracting each other (and causing a glow of the gas they move through), especially with the thinner (and then less massive) hypothesized neutrino stream being more affected than the thicker one (based on the thickness of the associated glowing region) as it is bent stronger and towards the other. And this kind of spiraling behavior of super-fluid matter streams close to each other would also fit to how the (far more huge in scale) filaments of the cosmic web have double-spiral shapes, as explained by Anton Petrov in the following video:

"Unexpected Discovery: Largest Rotating Structure in the Universe":

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpDAQpzJPdM

 

[Harry Costas]

I would rule out classical Black Holes with a Singularity.
But! I would not rule our compact objects that may contain in the core Quark, Partonic or Axion Gluon Matter that are able to generate Dipolar-Electro-Magnetic Vortices.
OK, we are not 100% sure, but! it's worth the discussion.

[Submitted on 2 Aug 2023]

Constraining the nature of dark compact objects with spin-induced octupole moment measurement​

Pankaj Saini, N.V.Krishnendu

Various theoretical models predict the existence of exotic compact objects that can mimic the properties of black holes (BHs). Gravitational waves (GWs) from the mergers of compact objects have the potential to distinguish between exotic compact objects and BHs. The measurement of spin-induced multipole moments of compact objects in binaries provides a unique way to test the nature of compact objects. The observations of GWs by LIGO and Virgo have already put constraints on the spin-induced quadrupole moment, the leading order spin-induced moment. In this work, we develop a Bayesian framework to measure the spin-induced octupole moment, the next-to-leading order spin-induced moment. The precise measurement of the spin-induced octupole moment will allow us to test its consistency with that of Kerr BHs in general relativity and constrain the allowed parameter space for non-BH compact objects. For various simulated compact object binaries, we explore the ability of the LIGO and Virgo detector network to constrain spin-induced octupole moment of compact objects. We find that LIGO and Virgo at design sensitivity can constrain the symmetric combination of component spin-induced octupole moments of binary for dimensionless spin magnitudes ∼0.8. Further, we study the possibility of simultaneously measuring the spin-induced quadrupole and octupole moments. Finally, we perform this test on selected GW events reported in the third GW catalog. These are the first constraints on spin-induced octupole moment using full Bayesian analysis.

 

[Atlan0001]

I would rule out classical Black Holes with a Singularity.
But! I would not rule our compact objects that may contain in the core Quark, Partonic or Axion Gluon Matter that are able to generate Dipolar-Electro-Magnetic Vortices.
OK, we are not 100% sure, but! it's worth the discussion.

[Submitted on 2 Aug 2023]

Constraining the nature of dark compact objects with spin-induced octupole moment measurement​

Pankaj Saini, N.V.Krishnendu

EFW's magnetic monopole (dipole moment) point (portal) singularity. Gyroscopic 0-d point / 1-d vibratory needle string / 2-d flatland disk (aka Sierpinski carpet) / 4-d fractal Menger (cubical and/or spherical) sponge. Never forget the third element always in some trojan position, whether finite ((+1) (unity)), finite ((-1) (unity)), or non-finite (null unity) infinite (0). You do . . . but not always.
----------------------

"Communication across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partial." -- Thomas S. Kuhn. (Ad trojan (ad triangulation . . . you must have a reach beyond grasp in order to grasp)).)

 

[Bernd Huber]

What should also happen when multiple steep collisions of super-massive black holes occur so that these black holes emit neutrino bursts of 1 or 2 magnitudes larger size than galaxies is that the 2 super-massive black holes should emit their neutrino bursts in alternating directions, i.e. always back and forth, so that essentially in the case of (significantly enough) differently (super-)massive black holes, they should first release more neutrinos (from one of the two super-massive black holes) in one direction than how many are ejected from the other super-massive black hole in the opposite direction, and then vice versa, and so on until the process ends. However, the absolute amounts of neutrinos ejected in each consecutive pair of bursts should also decrease, as the super-massive black holes lose more and more mass to the neutrino ejection bursts and have less of them remaining attached to them for later.

And if one were to or could compare the size ratios or mass ratios between the 2 sides or individual neutrino burst of each pair of cone-like shaped neutrino bursts (within the super-positioned high neutrino density regions from multiple neutrino bursts), then one probably could check in concrete examples of such events whether the ratio between the neutrino burst mass on one side to the opposite side is in favor of one of the 2 sides first, and then for the next pair of neutrino bursts, the mass ratio between both sides (consisting of individual neutrino bursts each) is in favor of the neutrino burst in the opposite direction, and so forth, alternating from one super-massive black hole collision to the next one. And if this were to be the case, then that should be further evidence for my dark matter theory.

And I guess when a galaxy already has neutrino stream (or filaments) flying around it, and it collides with another galaxy, then many of those neutrino streams should also be ejected. I guess within the galactic plane there should also be far extended, thin streams of high neutrino density regions orbiting the galactic center.Also, the fact that (stellar) black holes at collisions lose about 5% of their mass indicates that indeed, they should have enough neutrino material to lose a bunch of them over multiple collisions rather than all at once, with the loss being around that mass ratio.I guess when stellar black hole collisions send neutrino streams away from the galactic disc where they are slowed down by the galactic disc's pull, if they end up near the apex (of their motion) close to or within a globular star cluster (e.g. if it moves in about the same direction, with slightly slower motion speed), then the neutrino streams might just stay there and gather into compact neutrino swarms, and hence globular star clusters could over time be somewhat filled up with these neutrino swarms where they can come from a wide variety of places across the galactic disc, though I suppose in principle this could also happen if a stellar black hole ejects a neutrino stream from within a globular star cluster to another one that's on the opposite side of the galactic disc. And so globular star clusters may have especially many "impossibly heavy brown dwarf planets" and gas planets with atmospheric super-rotation and (fake) hot Jupiters (that also contain neutrino swarms upon dipping into and - with collected material from the star - back out of the star) in old star systems close to their stars, especially for globular star clusters that aren't too close to the galactic disc and are further away from the galactic center in particular, because then there would be more available neutrino stream ejection trajectories from different regions within the galactic disc that could approach a stand-still situation just as they arrive within a globular star cluster. And I guess generally, if a neutrinos stream just comes close to a globular star cluster, then it should bend the neutrino stream around it and likely stretch it.

Actually, given how far the neutrino bursts emerging from the collisions of super-massive black holes can reach, I wonder how many other galaxies' supermassive black holes (and which) would be nearby our galaxy close enough to reach it from far away with such neutrino bursts, and for any past collisions of super-massive black holes, the direction at which they collided would be interesting to know, since magnitudes larger than galaxies regions of space should then be especially densely filled with neutrinos in at least 1 of those directions each. And surely any galaxy with 2 super-massive black holes should have such neutrino burst events in its past. And I guess suspiciously low-mass super-massive black holes (relative e.g. to the size of the galaxy they may be in, or relative to its age and its location relative to the cosmic web) should rather have undergone the ejection of neutrino bursts in their past, while the most massive super-massive black holes rather not. And I guess the size of neutrino burst regions should be especially large if the super-massive black hole sources were deeper embedded within the cosmic web for a longer time, since their growth rate by accumulation of cosmic neutrinos should depend on that.And actually, another (vast) region of space, relative to a given (sufficiently strong accelerated) galaxy, that should especially well allow the formation of stellar-mass neutrino swarms out of neutrino swarms ejected from stellar black holes within a galaxy (but similarly for super-massive neutrino swarms) should be a distant region "behind" the galaxy, so in the direction that the galaxy is moving away from, because neutrino streams sent there should be slowed down further and further by the galaxy's gravity until the neutrino streams come to a stand-still which may allow the re-collection of the stream's neutrinos at one place to form neutrino swarms. And so given the hypothesis that the dark energy phenomenon is executed by virtue of relativistic neutrinos flowing in the cosmic web's filaments to push galaxies' black holes (and by their gravity indirectly also the stars and hence the whole galaxies) away from each other, under this assumption, it should then mean that such from galaxies distant but from them originating neutrino swarms should rather be found within the filaments of the cosmic web, and in direction towards the closest node of the cosmic web for a galaxy, if a cosmic web filament connects it to the node. However, I guess if in this direction (for a given galaxy within the cosmic web), there would be another galaxy too close to it, then by virtue of its pull on any inter-galactic neutrino streams approaching it, such a proximity to another galaxy may prevent or inhibit the formation of such extra-galactic neutrino swarms formed from stand-stills of neutrino streams. Though for galaxies that aren't accelerated strong enough, the formation of extra-galactic neutrino swarms from neutrino streams coming from them should be possible in any direction, though they might not last but eventually move back to such galaxy and then become stretched again, whereas for neutrino swarms formed behind a strong enough accelerated galaxy, by the time such neutrino swarm formed, the galaxy's pull on it may have weakened enough already for such neutrino swarm object to stay intact and separated, detached from it. And this circumstance then should also imply that for sufficiently massive neutrino swarms formed in this manner, e.g. from neutrino ejection bursts from super-massive black holes in the right direction, that they might frequently end up constituting gravitational lenses distorting the view from 1 galaxy to another galaxy when they are via a cosmic web filament connected neighbors to each other as galaxies. But I guess what might also happen to neutrino streams ejected from a galaxy (e.g. in the direction it's moving away from) would be that while the furthest ahead portion of such neutrino stream may have already come to a temporary but long enough extended stand-still to already have formed a stable neutrino swarm, the back-end or tail of the neutrino stream may still be on its way there and just pierce through the neutrino swarm and be separated from it as the neutrino swarm may be moving back as whole object to the galaxy.
Generally, for luminous filaments that are far extended in to a galactic disc orthogonal direction while being located far away from the galactic center, stellar black hole collisions (from black holes within a galactic disc) where the direction of motion of the black holes is rather orthogonal to the galactic disc should be responsible for many of these luminous filaments due to neutrino stream ejections causing them. And such neutrino streams may at more extreme altitudes beneath or above a galactic disc from there then be pulled towards the center of the galaxy.

And I suppose in principle, interstellar and circum-galactic neutrino streams might also be able to sufficiently much perturb (by virtue of their own gravity) neutrino swarms that they may come sufficiently close to, so that such neutrino swarms leak and lose too many neutrinos for the remaining ones to be capable of staying gravitationally bound to each other, and hence disappearing in all directions to space, and in the case of neutrino streams approaching stellar black holes, they may either hit them to apply a push on them or (with similar effect) be caught in them as they approach them.

Also, slower versions of neutrino streams might be flowing or orbiting around star systems in their Oort clouds, or even around (especially large, heavy) planets.

 

[Harry Costas]

Why are Neutrinos so important.
Something isn't right.
What is the relationship with compact cores?

Sorry I'm slightly confused, maybe more than slightly.

[Submitted on 2 Oct 2023]

Constraining MeV Neutrino Emission of Bright Transients with IceCube​

Nora Valtonen-Mattila, Spencer Griswold, Segev BenZvi (for the IceCube Collaboration)

MeV neutrinos are produced in many astrophysical transients, such as stellar collapses and high-energy jets, where they play a role in sustaining and cooling energetic explosions. Detecting these neutrinos from sources outside the Milky Way is very difficult due to the small neutrino-nucleon cross section at MeV. Nevertheless, the non-observation of MeV neutrinos from high-energy transients may provide useful constraints on related neutrino production mechanisms where significant MeV production is expected. The IceCube Neutrino Observatory, a cubic kilometer neutrino detector operating with nearly 100% uptime at the South Pole, is sensitive to bursts of MeV neutrinos from astrophysical sources in and beyond the Milky Way. In this work, we describe the MeV neutrino detection system of IceCube and show results from several categories of astrophysical transients.

 

[Bernd Huber]

> Why are Neutrinos so important.
Dark matter entirely consists of neutrinos, as I already elaborated on in my 1st post, that's why.

Given that (spiral) galaxies also grow by smaller galaxies merging into larger galaxies, and that this process - according to my dark matter theory - should imply in size tens to hundreds of galaxies vast, massive (approximately) cone-shaped blasts or shock-waves of neutrinos leaked or ejected from either or both of the usual super-massive black holes at the center of galaxies in some direction (or 1 direction together with the opposite direction) for such cone that may then be pointing away from or intersect the galactic disc of an in this process involved galaxy, this should mean that depending on with what ellipticity both galaxies started out and how they collided and what ellipticity they normally otherwise should as result obtain, the to the galactic discs applied gravitational pull that stems from the past the galaxies into space outward spreading neutrinos that make up the neutrino shock-waves should (at least have the plausible potential to) lead to a larger ellipticity of such spiral galaxies' discs, though for multiple galaxy merger events for a given galaxy, such effects could balance each other out, or otherwise add to the resulting galactic ellipticity, depending on the directional orientation of later galaxy collisions in comparison to former ones. But in the case of there being a huge, extended (albeit narrow) cone of very high neutrino density reaching right through a galaxy's disc in some direction, the gravitational pull from to the center of the galaxy that applies to stars in the region to which such neutrino shock-wave spreads should locally be lowered while the stars that are close to and are moving to such region also should be accelerated towards such dark matter (i.e. neutrinos) cone along their way, (*) meaning that they should obtain more eccentric orbits around the galactic center, to some extent at least, and this should hold true for an extended duration as the high density neutrino particle cone stretches further out and is more and more diluted, moving its mass away from the galaxy. And so I wonder if this could explain instances of high ellipticities of super spiral galaxies.

Also, maybe the fact that super spiral galaxies tend to be barred, i.e. having a huge bar densely filled with stars through their galactic center, could be causally related to former (from collisions of super-massive black holes emerging) neutrino burst cones at galaxy collisions in the case that they pointed to a direction that's at least close to parallel to the galactic plane. Such neutrino burst cones in their orientation opposed to each other and moving away from the galactic center should then by their gravitational pull help pulling interstellar gas from the galactic disc together specifically into those extended regions, which should lead to increased star-formation for some extended time period, which could induce the formation of such bars. And also the fact that super spiral galaxies tend to have 2 spiral arms whereas smaller spiral galaxies have various numbers of spiral arms might be causally related to neutrino burst cone pairs in opposite directions accelerating and re-arranging stars in the disc in a way that favors arranging spiral arms into 2 resulting spiral arms, possibly rather independent of what number of spiral arm was present before. Such bars of large spiral galaxies with high ellipticity then also should rather be oriented in orthogonal direction to the direction that the galaxy is stretched toward by their ellipticity, due to (*).

However, spiral galaxies don't have to collide in a direction within or at small angle to their galactic discs' planes, and so if the neutrino burst cones point more orthogonally away from the disc(s), it might lead to a (then generally rather somewhat point-symmetrical) curving of the galactic plane. And directions of collisions of galaxies that aren't within or at close angles to their galactic planes should statistically be more likely, and so curved discs then should be statistically frequent. And this maybe could then explain the Milky Way galaxy's curved galactic plane ( "Polish Scientists Create a 3D Map of Our Galaxy, Confirming It's Not Flat":

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGe4GfO7FC0
). However, another conceivable cause candidate for explaining the galactic plane's curvature might be the gravitational influence from the Sagittarius galaxy on our galaxy.

Also the long process of our galaxy slowing down in its rotational speed should also make perfect sense in the context of my dark matter theory, since if galaxy collisions send out neutrino burst cones from their super-massive black holes, then by the law of conservation of angular momentum applied to the case of all the neutrinos part of the neutrino burst cones ejected from the super-massive black holes, once they moved way out of the galaxy, blasted out to space, carrying some of the angular momentum with them, the galactic rotation speed should slow down accordingly, and the depth of the galactic gravitational well decreases, too. And this should be a phenomenon that applies in general for such massive neutrino burst cones directed in not too close to orthogonal directions to the galactic plane but rather parallel to it.

And there is observational evidence in the case of our galaxy that this does happen:

"Something Is Slowing Down Milky Way's Galactic Bar Rotation":

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4Sh3Khz1F4

Other than that, the so-called bullet of the Bullet cluster then likely is by warm neutrinos part of a from a super-massive black hole ejected neutrino burst cone illuminated gas that is part of the galaxies, where the region-dependent brightness should depend on the local burst cone neutrinos' density and gas density:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Bullet_cluster.jpg

 

[Harry Costas]

Neutrinos must be compacted beyond Axion Gluon Matter compaction.

 

[Bernd Huber]

The explanation for why - via reasoning based on the proposed mechanism from my dark energy theory - the curve that describes the rate of expansion of all matter in the universe (rather than space itself, as the invented concept of inflation, meant to - due to non-existence of event horizons - needlessly resolve the problem of an event horizon associated to the mass concentration of all matter near or at the big bang, doesn't exist) has the shape that it has should with knowledge about basic qualitative cosmological facts be self-evident and not require being made explicit, but in the following I'll do so anyway, just in case:

"Hubble Trouble: How fast is the universe expanding?":

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj7RN8sDYKo


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 (with its initial high acceleration & steep slope, then flattening out, and finally accelerating again, before it ultimately will decelerate again and become a negative expansion rate, since the relativistic neutrino fuel is finite) matches the initial & the renewed acceleration behavior of the universe's expansion since after generation III stars' formation has become impossible (due to the density of the interstellar gas having become low enough), after a delay in the further production of black holes takes hold since stars take millions or billions of years to finally collapse, more stars after this flat phase in the curve 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 drive the expansion rate further. In this context also, the in the universe very first formed (confusingly so-called generation III) stars should by their enormous stellar winds (mainly within the equatorial plane of their rotation where the stellar wind is the strongest) push on the interstellar gas nearby and in direction of the particle jets of the black holes inside them, too, but should also pull on the gas from nearby regions which reduces the gravitational pull from that gas on even further away located gas due to increased distance to it, consequently contributing additionally to a faster formation rate of further (generation III) stars, which (possibly among other factors) should explain the presence of the initial acceleration phase in the steep part of the curve. Note that in this context, the number of inter-galactic relativistic neutrinos being exchanged between galaxies stays rather constant instead of decreasing by a square distance law, since these neutrinos are gravitationally held together to stream alongside each other within the filaments of the cosmic web made of relativistic neutrinos. The final acceleration of the curve describing the expansion rate should be explained by the fact that the earlier a star collapses into a black holes the heavier it is and the rarer it is the result of a collapsing gas cloud, so that at later points in time the rate of black hole formation increases as more stars start to collapse (until late enough when the too light-weight stars don't form black holes or neutron stars at collapse anymore). And when the neutrinos fly around galaxies they also apply a swing by to pull them away, like gravitational lensing, but for neutrinos.

"Black Hole Star – The Star That Shouldn't Exist":

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeWyp2vXxqA


Also, here is an arxiv link to Lu Yin's scientific paper, which supports the theory of positive correlation between energy transfer from dark matter to dark energy (explicitly cited further below): 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 -0.2601 km/s/Mpc and 70.9338 +0.2549 -0.2515 km/s/Mpc. The fitting result of gamma 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.

 

[Harry Costas]

The assumption of cosmic dawn starts from assuming that the universe has a start.
The more evidence we accumulate, the less likely there was a start.

Since matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed. We need to understand the properties of matter and energy how they change from one phase to the next and their relationship to star and galaxy formations.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.20038v1

[Submitted on 31 May 2023]

Cosmic-Dawn 21-cm Signal from Dynamical Dark Energy​

Lu Yin

The 21-cm signal is the most important measurement for us to understand physics during cosmic dawn. It is the key for us to understand the expansion history of the Universe and the nature of dark energy. In this paper, we focused on the characteristic 21-cm power spectrum of a special dynamic dark energy - the Interacting Chevallier-Polarski-Linder (ICPL) model - and compared it with those of the ΛCDM and CPL models. From the expected noise of HERA, we found more precise experiments in the future can detect the features of interacting dark energy in the 21-cm power spectra. By studying the brightness temperature, we found the ICPL model is closer to the observation of EDGES compared to the ΛCDM, thus alleviating the tension between theory and experiments.

 

[Bernd Huber]

On the topic, and in particular to this point of observation,

(iv) 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

one could also mention that, assuming that a spiral galaxy is located in a filament of the (dark) cosmic web, and that (according to my theory) there are galactic quantities of relativistic neutrinos that flow (possibly in both directions, depending on the situation, but near nodes in the cosmic web, the flow would come mainly from the direction of such a node) along the filament and through the galaxy, then such a spiral galaxy (especially if it is older) is in the orientation of its plane relative to the filament through it gradually, slowly tilted away over time so that most of the filament's neutrinos are flowing not through but around the galaxy's disc, because these inter-galactic neutrinos impact on the stellar black holes that are forming more and more in the galaxy over time, by hitting them and pulling on them (while the black holes subsequently pull the nearby stars with them through their gravity) when the neutrinos are captured by them (and the same process probably in a weaker form similarly applies to neutron stars), and if there is an imbalance in (i) the number of black holes, (ii) the points in time of formation of black holes, and (iii) the distance between the center of the galaxy and the forming stellar black holes (keyword leverage), whereby one can divide a galaxy into 2 halves for every angle between 0° and 180°, then one can go through all of them and probably find a case in which the difference in the pressure acting on stellar black holes in the galaxy plane (with appropriate absolute and relative weightings of the above relevant factors (i), (ii), and (iii) to be determined, but possibly also other factors) is the greatest based on to the inter-galactic neutrino flow on the respective disk halves and the respective stellar black hole distributions on the plane halves, and a spiral galaxy then (despite or separately from its continuous rotational movement, as long as the spiral galaxy is located quite centrally in the filament that flows through the galaxy) should gradually tilt away in the direction of the disk half (its plane), where (relative to the other disk half) the pressure exerted onto it is the highest.

The leverage in this context would of course be relative to the center of the galaxy, where its supermassive black hole is usually located (which was assumed, but even if only the center of mass of the galaxy is there, it should be fine). One can imagine the distribution of black holes (which are all pushed in the same direction, orthogonal to the galactic plane due to the neutrino stream that is the filament through it) to be alike (slowly emerging and growing) stones in different places on a so-called spinning plate (i.e. a plate that is balanced and rotating, with a stick under its center). And the closer a stellar black hole is to the center, the more it also pulls stars on the opposite side (in a weakened manner due to the greater distance) with downwards with it, but the difference between the stars on its own side being pulled downwards compared to the other side will probably be greatest if the stellar black hole is at the maximum distance from the galactic center. Every axis-symmetrical component of the pulling "downwards" (between two disk halves of the same size) that affects both sides to the same extent cancels out regarding its contribution to the one-sided inclination of the plane. So if you mentally (or as a mathematical operation as part of a calculation) mirror-reflect the from a stellar black hole emanating portion of the gravitational attraction force's component in orthogonal direction to the plane back to its own disk side, then you can subtract this part from the gravitational attraction force that is stronger there, and the part that then solely acts on half of the galactic plane is weakened, and is therefore more weakened the closer the stellar black hole is to the center.

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello

Bernd Huber​

The Milkyway has many Black Holes, the large ones form a swam near the center. The largest is about 8 million solar masses.

 

[Adoni Yannop]

> Why are Neutrinos so important.
Dark matter entirely consists of neutrinos, as I already elaborated on in my 1st post, that's why.

Given that (spiral) galaxies also grow by smaller galaxies merging into larger galaxies, and that this process - according to my dark matter theory - should imply in size tens to hundreds of galaxies vast, massive (approximately) cone-shaped blasts or shock-waves of neutrinos leaked or ejected from either or both of the usual super-massive black holes at the center of galaxies in some direction (or 1 direction together with the opposite direction) for such cone that may then be pointing away from or intersect the galactic disc of an in this process involved galaxy, this should mean that depending on with what ellipticity both galaxies started out and how they collided and what ellipticity they normally otherwise should as result obtain, the to the galactic discs applied gravitational pull that stems from the past the galaxies into space outward spreading neutrinos that make up the neutrino shock-waves should (at least have the plausible potential to) lead to a larger ellipticity of such spiral galaxies' discs, though for multiple galaxy merger events for a given galaxy, such effects could balance each other out, or otherwise add to the resulting galactic ellipticity, depending on the directional orientation of later galaxy collisions in comparison to former ones. But in the case of there being a huge, extended (albeit narrow) cone of very high neutrino density reaching right through a galaxy's disc in some direction, the gravitational pull from to the center of the galaxy that applies to stars in the region to which such neutrino shock-wave spreads should locally be lowered while the stars that are close to and are moving to such region also should be accelerated towards such dark matter (i.e. neutrinos) cone along their way, (*) meaning that they should obtain more eccentric orbits around the galactic center, to some extent at least, and this should hold true for an extended duration as the high density neutrino particle cone stretches further out and is more and more diluted, moving its mass away from the galaxy. And so I wonder if this could explain instances of high ellipticities of super spiral galaxies.

Also, maybe the fact that super spiral galaxies tend to be barred, i.e. having a huge bar densely filled with stars through their galactic center, could be causally related to former (from collisions of super-massive black holes emerging) neutrino burst cones at galaxy collisions in the case that they pointed to a direction that's at least close to parallel to the galactic plane. Such neutrino burst cones in their orientation opposed to each other and moving away from the galactic center should then by their gravitational pull help pulling interstellar gas from the galactic disc together specifically into those extended regions, which should lead to increased star-formation for some extended time period, which could induce the formation of such bars. And also the fact that super spiral galaxies tend to have 2 spiral arms whereas smaller spiral galaxies have various numbers of spiral arms might be causally related to neutrino burst cone pairs in opposite directions accelerating and re-arranging stars in the disc in a way that favors arranging spiral arms into 2 resulting spiral arms, possibly rather independent of what number of spiral arm was present before. Such bars of large spiral galaxies with high ellipticity then also should rather be oriented in orthogonal direction to the direction that the galaxy is stretched toward by their ellipticity, due to (*).

However, spiral galaxies don't have to collide in a direction within or at small angle to their galactic discs' planes, and so if the neutrino burst cones point more orthogonally away from the disc(s), it might lead to a (then generally rather somewhat point-symmetrical) curving of the galactic plane. And directions of collisions of galaxies that aren't within or at close angles to their galactic planes should statistically be more likely, and so curved discs then should be statistically frequent. And this maybe could then explain the Milky Way galaxy's curved galactic plane ( "Polish Scientists Create a 3D Map of Our Galaxy, Confirming It's Not Flat":

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGe4GfO7FC0
). However, another conceivable cause candidate for explaining the galactic plane's curvature might be the gravitational influence from the Sagittarius galaxy on our galaxy.

Also the long process of our galaxy slowing down in its rotational speed should also make perfect sense in the context of my dark matter theory, since if galaxy collisions send out neutrino burst cones from their super-massive black holes, then by the law of conservation of angular momentum applied to the case of all the neutrinos part of the neutrino burst cones ejected from the super-massive black holes, once they moved way out of the galaxy, blasted out to space, carrying some of the angular momentum with them, the galactic rotation speed should slow down accordingly, and the depth of the galactic gravitational well decreases, too. And this should be a phenomenon that applies in general for such massive neutrino burst cones directed in not too close to orthogonal directions to the galactic plane but rather parallel to it.

And there is observational evidence in the case of our galaxy that this does happen:

"Something Is Slowing Down Milky Way's Galactic Bar Rotation":

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4Sh3Khz1F4

Other than that, the so-called bullet of the Bullet cluster then likely is by warm neutrinos part of a from a super-massive black hole ejected neutrino burst cone illuminated gas that is part of the galaxies, where the region-dependent brightness should depend on the local burst cone neutrinos' density and gas density:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Bullet_cluster.jpg

Bernd, You are correct that dark matter consists mainly of neutrinos!! BUTTE, do you know why that is so??
The answer is that only particles with permanent rest mass can generate gravity!! And the neutrino is given with a rest mass of about one millionth the rest mass of the electron@511,000 eV which gives the neutrino 0.511 eV of permanent mass-potential energy!!
Now, If you were to entertain my thoughts on how neutron permeable sacs that decay to proton permeable sacs, electron permeable sacs and energy release evolved over infinite time in a finite in volume universe from gaseous God Particle 1s (GP1s) defined as the tiniest gaseous particle mass in the universe about a quintillionth the mass of the neutrino, then, you can join a small club of individuals that know exactly how matter particles generate gravitational force!!
You ask!!): Exactly, what is this (GP1) God Particle 1 wind natural flow from High GP1 Aether Pressure to low GP1 Aether Pressure that is, supposedly, pushing our local galactic group and everything around our group towards Shapley and Great Attractors??
My theoretical gaseous particle the GP1 is defined as the tiniest particle of mass in the universe about a quintillionth the mass of the neutrino, the medium of electromagnetic waves and gravitational waves and the building block of strings that got woven into sterile neutrino particle sacs of mass that evolved to neutrons in the center of our finite in volume ageless universe!!
The key message here is that each of the four given particles with rest mass are not each and everyone a perpetual gravitational force energy machine directly proportional to its mass and inertia!! Yes): Mass and Inertia are each mistakenly given as equivalent for any size of mass!! I argue "given facts" that disprove this notion that I will present later!!
Gravitational force is generated as matter particle permeable sacs heat up and net absorb GP1 Aether Particles as the matter particles heat up, store compressed gaseous GP1s inside their permeable sacs while also storing potential dark energy!!
The undeniable proof for this fact is our own Sun!!
Dark Matter Can Never Be Explained By The Three Million Physicists Of Today Because The Physicists Do Not Know How Gravitational Force Is Generated By Matter And That Gravitational Force Is The Direct Function Of Mass And The Rate At Which The Matter Particles Of The Mass Heat Up As Evidenced By The History Of Our Sun And Its Projected Future!!
1): Take Our Own Sun As An Example Of Gravity Generation As Our Sun’s Matter Heats Up!!):
A): We Are Given That Our Sun Formed From The Collapse Of A Molecular Hydrogen-Helium Cloud At 10 Degrees Kelvin!!
B): We Are Given That For The Past 5 Billion Years That Our Sun Has Been Heating Up And Generating Gravity!!
C): We Are Given That Our Sun Will Heat Up By 6% Per Billion Years For The Next 5 Billion Years While Generating Gravity!!
D): In 5 Billion Years); We Are Given That Our Sun Will Start Cooling From 7777 Kelvin To 3000 Kelvin While Net Emitting The Stored Anti-Gravity/Dark Energy Stored Inside The Nucleon, Electron And Neutrino Indestructible Mass-Energy Vessel Permeable Hovering Sacs In The Form Of Compressed GP1 Aether Particles That Were Stored During The 10 Billion Years That Our Sun Heated Up And Generated Gravity Blowing Off Half Its Mass Leaving A White Dwarf Remnant About The Size Of Earth At 200,000 Times Earth Density!!
E): One Proof That As Matter Cools And Net Expels GP1 Aether Particles); Dark Energy Is Released Is The Red Giant Phase Of Our Sun’s Life Cycle And All Red Giant Stars!!
2): From Observations Of Bullet Clusters We Know That Gravity And Dark Matter Gravity Stays With The Star Matter And Dark Neutrino Matter Heating Up From The Radiant Energy Of Stars And Not With An Equal Amount Of Cooling Hot Gaseous Matter Left Behind As The Two Galactic Clusters!!
Bernd, Have some fun!!): Calculate the dark matter between Earth and Uranus!! I Believe that I got about about 80 Solar Masses??
We are given that Inertia is equal to Mass which is given as directly equal to Gravitational Force Generation!! Which means that if true and there was no dark neutrino matter, the velocity of the planets orbiting around our Sun should decline by the inverse square of the distance from our Sun!!
BUT our solar system planet’s orbit much much faster than an inverse square of the distance from our sun which means that calculating the mass necessary to maintain the high velocity of Uranus versus Earth versus about 2 Solar Masses of regular Matter including our Sun and Uranus is the dark matter in our Solar System through Uranus!!
In a later post, I’ll redo the calculations!! Until, then, please):
Smile Often and See What Happens!!

 

[Bernd Huber]

(Even) further supporting evidence (and at least already a near confirmation of a prediction from my unified dark matter and dark energy theory) for my neutrino-based dark matter theory has come up recently, by the way, to keep you folks informed on the progress there:

"Final parsec problem of black hole mergers and ultralight dark matter": https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.03412

https://www.universetoday.com/16445...olve-the-final-parsec-problem-of-black-holes/

In this new study, the team considers a variation on dark matter known as fuzzy dark matter. It’s similar to standard cold dark matter except it is made of low-mass scalar particles. Since these particles wouldn’t interact with each other by anything other than gravity, they wouldn’t clump in quite the same way as regular dark matter, and thus have a more “fuzzy” distribution.

It should be inaccurate to the extent of the differences (to modeling it with neutrinos) that enter via the fuzziness of the in their model assumed, on ultra-light particles based dark matter, but that's about it.

Here the authors show that fuzzy dark matter can increase the rate of orbital decay for black holes, particularly the largest of supermassive black holes. It could explain some of the monsters we’ve observed at the heart of some elliptical galaxies.

And guess what else can speed this merging process up: Lost or leaked streams of dark matter (i.e. neutrinos), carrying a significant portion of the black holes' initial momentum away with them, as they get accelerated around each other.