Update 2: Halo vs MOND vs DM

Jan 12, 2024
29
3
35
Visit site
Is there anyone out there that has attempted to merge dark matter and dark energy with or without success.

Since nobody has responded to my question, I will present a way to merge DE and DM and follow with some of the consequences. Although this method is just a theory until proven right or wrong, I ask that it not be denigrated by anyone, unless that person has a better proposal. That is how science moves forward.
Thanks

Assumptions:
Space is quantized and should be treated as a superfluid.
There is a halo around our galaxy that creates and emits particles of space.
Matter acquires mass by absorbing particles of space.
The rate of flow outward is based on the amount particles a source produces. Space is always expanding.
For stable orbits Force (Centripetal) = Force (Centrifugal)
Force (Centripetal) = Force (Sink) + Force (Source)
Observations:
Matter moves at a greater tangential velocity that could be supported by Forces(sink).
Increased forces from Force(Source) allow matter to move at a much greater velocity.

Below are the current properties believed to be associated with Dark Matter.
"Unlike normal matter, dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force.
This means it does not absorb, reflect or emit light, making it extremely hard to spot.
In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the
gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter". CERN
How do two opposing forces arise from particles of space that are expanding?

As a placeholder, particles of space heading outward, will be called Dark Energy.
It is easy to see or calculate that particles of space heading away from the MW will increase the volume
or expand our universe.
The Universe expands/accelerates through the contribution of space from all the halos.
The contribution of space by all the halos in our universe will create the illusion of an
expanding universe from everywhere.

Using this analogy, the presence of space and additional energy will be attributed to the halos
in the universe. The need to believe that the universe is expanding everywhere and unable to explain
why energy is not diluted with the expansion could finally be put to rest.

All particles of space leaving the halo inward and outward are expanding.

Those heading inward away from the halo will be called source(halo).
The illusion of contraction inside the galaxy occurs, when matter to create mass siphons off space.
Remember, all sides of the halo (particles of space) are expanding and do not need matter to propel each particle.
The majority of the force needed by matter that make up the galactic linear curve is acquired by the force of the source(halo). A very small percentage is obtained from the sink(halo).

Source and sinks umbrellas will be introduces to represent areas in our galaxy. Sink umbrella are areas that can be described using newton or Einstein. Source umbrellas are areas with particles having velocities that are not predicted by Newton. In other words, areas extending from the perimeter of the sink to the internal perimeter of the galactic halo.

MOND works by applying its formula(s) to areas of the galaxy located in the source umbrella, away from areas controlled by forces in the sink(s) umbrella. MOND also requires the Centripetal value for masses at the interface of the sink umbrella and the source umbrella. The value will be used as a basis for its calculations. At this time the Centripetal value is calculated using empirical methods of measurement. Ultimately, the value represents the point at which the CA sink equal the CA source. It represents, the maximum value for Centripetal acceleration force from the sink umbrella matches the minimum Centripetal Acceleration force from the source umbrella.

MOND makes two basic mistakes which cancel each other.
Mistakes:

1. Calculated centripetal acceleration needed to support the tangential velocity using Newtonian Mechanics. Value was determined to be incorrect based on lack of visible matter and Newtonian dynamics.
2. Assumed that inertia decreases with acceleration.

Combine this two mistakes and you will get a good approximation to the galactic rotation curve.

Einstein or Newton work well, if the formulas are applied to areas within the sink umbrella.
MOND works well when the MOND formulas are applied to areas in the source umbrella.
The interface is defined by particles from the sink umbrella and source umbrella with the same Centripetal Acc.

Both calculations hold value, when and how to implement them is the key to their value.
After 70 years of invisibility, how much longer must we continue to waste scientific resources seeking
a particle so elusive that it resembles space particles.
If we include "source and sink" to our definition of gravity, would it add or detract
to our understanding of gravity?



Thanks,