We still don't know what dark matter is, but here's what it's not

Dark matter' is STUPID BS.
Problem 1:
(i repeat)
'dark matter' would have self contradicting properties in terms of gravity.
in a disk galaxy it would have to be in a faucet washer shape.
The outside edge of which is immune to gravity.
Since it doesn't pile up around stars and planets it's immune to gravity again,
BUT when a galaxy orbits another galaxy it does follow THAT curvature of gravity?!?

Problem 2:
When a galaxy orbits another it largely retains its concentricity of form.
The galaxy's central black hole stays in center of hole in the 'dark matter',
which requires a WHOLE NEW FORCE OF PHYSICS!
Mutual repulsion between black holes and 'dark matter'?!?

Problem 3:
The hypothesized quantity of 'dark matter' in virtually every galaxy out there is exactly proportional to the size of its central black hole?!?

One would expect 'dark matter' and central black holes to have reasonable independence from one another.
Relativity does not require mass/matter for curvature/gravity to be present.
ie. de Sitter & Schwarzschild space-times.
Get past Einstein's hang up trying to pin ALL curvature/gravity exclusively on mass/matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Feb 6, 2020
36
14
4,535
Visit site
"There are roughly 1 billion dark matter particles passing through you every second,..."
Is that claim by conjecture or by conclusion?

Without championing recent evidence for Milgrom, et al.'s best MOND variant (I'm sitting on the fence now), I find the article as a whole, and some of the quotes, alarmingly rife with spongy reasoning and glib assumptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ryan F. Mercer
Is that claim by conjecture or by conclusion?

Without championing recent evidence for Milgrom, et al.'s best MOND variant (I'm sitting on the fence now), I find the article as a whole, and some of the quotes, alarmingly rife with spongy reasoning and glib assumptions.
Hey danR! I couldn't agree more.
 
Aug 21, 2023
1
1
10
Visit site
I got my BS in Physics 40 years ago but moved on to graduate degrees in Computer Science. So, not pretending to be a real physicist, but I have a pretty good basis.

My daughter is taking a physics course at university and asked me what dark matter is. I'm 40 years out of date so I checked the latest research. It seems exactly what it was 40 years ago. Blind faith in a theoretical construct to support the math without a shred of evidence. That doesn't mean it is "BS" - but maybe we should question our absolute certainty and explore alternative theoretical models?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unclear Engineer

Jzz

May 10, 2021
189
61
4,660
Visit site
Dark matter' is STUPID BS.
An experimental detector can now rule out dark matter particles down to about a fifth of a proton's mass.
The kind of carping that is present in the comments seems to characterize the whole of modern physics: “If you can’t understand something: wing it!” The article I read on the subject stated that about 95% of all matter in the Universe was Dark Matter and Dark energy. It might be possible to dismiss, a few percent of something as being due to faulty reasoning or so but 95%? Surely not.

At this time I would like to raise what for many must be an unpleasant observation, namely that the properties of Dark matter seem to be identical to that of the discarded and much ridiculed concept of the aether. Dark matter allows the passage of ALL kinds of electromagnetic radiation, without offering the slightest resistance or hindrance to its passage; this is exactly what the aether was supposed to do. Take time to think about this, it is not such a commonplace occurrence, a substance that occupies an amazing 95% of the Universe, allows the free passage of all electromagnetic radiation and gravity also!

Also think about the fact that our earth and our solar system HAVE to lie within that 95% of the Universe that is occupied by Dark Matter and Dark energy, ergo: What we took to be the aether was Dark Matter!

Look at some of the properties of Dark matter: (1) It is absolutely permeable to matter i.e., it can pass through a dense body like the earth or the sun without the slightest interaction and without offering a discernible opposition to its passage (2) the opposite is also true, bodies like the solar system, stars and Galaxies can pass through Dark Matter without experiencing any interaction. (3) It is practically undetectable (just like the aether was) (4) it cannot be weighed (5) it cannot be quantified in any manner whatsoever (6) Its presence can only be inferred by its effects (again just like the aether) (7) it is odourless (8) it is invisible and so on…..

Yet, there are certain things about Dark Matter that we do know. WE KNOW for instance, that it influences gravity WE KNOW that it allows the free passage of all electromagnetic radiation. WE KNOW that it can’t be weighed or quantified. Where does this leave special and general relativity. I’ll tell you: In the Dust!

BUT I feel we are very wrong in inferring by these circumstances that Dark Matter must have a discernible weight, the weight attributed to Dark Matter is far in excess of what it probably is. Can you imagine a Universe that is packed solid with particles that weigh one fifth of a proton! That is a mass equal to that of 400 electrons? Impossible! If you want to know what Dark Matter is and get a handle of how it works. Read my article on The Electromagnetic Universe
 
Last edited:
BS is sometimes how people grapple with things they don't understand or at least haven't figured out all the details. It's also a means of prevaricating &/or obfuscating ignorance by self anointed 'authorities'.
Bluffing when you have no good cards.

Why not call it what it is, namely
Astro Gravity Spackle.
Anywhere there appears to be gravity for no obvious reason trowel on some AGS.

But using any kind of matter would require self-inconsistent properties.
Matter simply doesn't wok, PERIOD.
What are the gravitational & inertia properties of that mythical 'dark matter'?
They are nonsense.

'Dark matter' is illogical.
 
Why do we need it? What if our estimates of star velocity is wrong? Can we observe the actual length that the star travels? What if the star is not only moving in and out as it orbits, but also goes up and down while in orbit? This would add length to your time of travel that you would not see. What if the star was in a helical spin as it orbited? That would add un-seen length. And if all the stars were doing this....it would appear as a warpage when viewed edge-on. These un-seen lengths add velocity and momentum to your figures.
 
We cannot see the proper motion of any star outside our local neighborhood, certainly not in another galaxy. Line of sight velocities look at Doppler shift of a series of points across the image of a galaxy. Any orbit up/down, above/below the galaxies disc is independent of the orbit around the galaxy itself. Just like the Moon's orbit is independent of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. (Except for very small, insignificant effects,)

The arguments for red and blue shifting not due to Doppler effect and/or the expansion of space are not accepted. "Tired light", etc have been dismissed.