## In the dark about dark matter

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

### In the dark about dark matter

I tried to discuss with some mainstream scientists about dark matter, playing the role of a "student".

Dark matter itself is a hypothesis.
What is observed is that the visible objects in galaxies have a unexplained constant rotation-velocity. Let me be clear: the speed of the objects in the galaxy is constant, independent of the radius.
Only near the centre it behaves like the solar system: the inner objects move faster.
Outside the centre, the objects move equally fast.

I found out that the mainstream scientists simply assume that adding more invisible mass in the equations,
automatically solves the problem.
That is because they assume more mass= more gravity = more acceleration.

Adding mass doesn't create a constant speed.
So to solve that problem, they put more mass in the outside of the galaxies.
They follow the path of: More mass= more gravity = more acceleration = more speed.
They imagine a "halo of dark matter" around the galaxy.

They seem to think that the objects can attract each other in rings.
Objects near the centre attract the ones just next to it, and those attract the ones a step further away.
All the way until the end.
They should form some kind of chain that hold the fast moving outer ring within the galaxy.

But that does not work, because the chain creates a slingshot effect.
It is not a stable system.

And is not what we observe in galaxies.
What we see in galaxies are spirals, not stable chains or stable rings.

In any configuration that I can think of, that extra mass will just fly away from the galaxy.
More speed needs more acceleration.
And more acceleration needs more mass on the inside, not on the outside.
If you put more mass on the inside, there is no "halo', and the rotation velocity is not constant.

Stability and constant rotation speed can not be solved at the same time with any
distribution of dark matter.
So the dark matter hypothesis is simply wrong.

Are mainstream scientists not able to think of two problems at the same time?

Maybe I have missed some important point, please tell me. Is there some strange
relativity related effect?

But if you agree with my idea, how can we convince the mainstream that their idea is not working?
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Zyxzevn

Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

### Re: In the dark about dark matter

Dark matter IMHO is a barefaced and transparent attempt to keep alive outdated theories , they sprinkle it like fairy dust , just where they need it, to balance the 'gravitational' books.

There is no chance of converting 'mainstream' .... It is made up of people who understand that if they get into EU, they will very soon lose their university/government job.... others don't understand things well and assume mainstream must be correct ..... It's like a religious cult .

There is no doubt in my mind there is a conspiracy at the highest levels of astrophysics , to steer things the way they wan't ,the aim being to keep humanity in the dark, slow our development and suppress liberating new technologies .
oz93666

Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:12 pm

### Re: In the dark about dark matter

While I agree with your criticisms of dark matter theory, they are just that: criticisms of an existing theory. What is needed is A BETTER THEORY to describe galactic rotation. Until that one arrives, well, there's not much there to push as a replacement is there.

One that I am hopeful about is the Conformal Gravity treatment, which models galactic rotation quite well.
saul

Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

### Re: In the dark about dark matter

saul wrote:While I agree with your criticisms of dark matter theory,...

My point is that the theory is already in conflict with the observations.
Any attempt to keep an obvious invalid theory is insanity.
In that sense is "dark matter" just like unicorns.

I'd rather have no theory, than a theory that is wrong.
We could say: "We have these observations, but we don't know what is causing them".

Like this thing:

Quantum Cheshire Cat - Sixty Symbols
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Zyxzevn

Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

### Re: In the dark about dark matter

No. They can't.

They get some data back from remote moons and planets, and have to have theories for what was observed, no matter how ridiculous, or what they have to presume.

They get someone's theory, like the Big Bang theory, and then have to pretend to know what happened at every point of time in that theory.

And they combine presumptuous theories, and do calculations to come up with even more preposterous theories, such as merging Black Holes causing ripples in the fabric of space-time.

It all keeps them, and us, from looking at the problems that still exist in our fundamental theories.
From the embarrassment of the unanswered questions, that still exist about the Earth and our Solar system.
And about light, and matter, and charge, and gravity.

~Paul

comingfrom

Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

### Re: In the dark about dark matter

Might I suggest you exchange gravity/mass to charge density/mass allied to atomic asymmetry due to electrical attraction and repulsion, now you are not trapped in the unidirectional Newtonian gravity theory but instead have inward electron flow and outward ionic displacement as the counterbalancing forces and no need for dark ANYTHING and don't even get me started on mythological Big Bang's or black holes, super-massive or otherwise!
freemanjack

Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:40 pm

### Re: In the dark about dark matter

New findings show that Dark Matter theory is no longer valid..

In rotating galaxies, distribution of normal matter precisely determines gravitational acceleration
"A new radial acceleration relation found among spiral and irregular galaxies challenges current understanding – and possibly existence – of dark matter"

The Radial Acceleration Relation in Rotationally Supported Galaxies (pdf!)
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Zyxzevn

Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

### Re: In the dark about dark matter

In addition to the two recent papers using near infrared "light" in the Tully-Fisher relationship ("luminosity determines amount of mass present") instead of visible light - supposedly correlates better than the visible band - this paper was also posted on arXiv, in which electric fields in galaxies are discussed, with an interesting method of calculating how much charge would be required to obtain a relatively flat orbital velocity curve like those observed and under discussion here.

You can google the author of the paper, who is found to be a pretty regular scientist affiliated with the academic system. In my view, this direction should eventually prove more fruitful at providing answers to these types of "difficult to find sufficient evidence" questions. It certainly accords better with Wal Thornhill's hypothesis as to what creates the accelerations due to gravity.

If you haven't read up on the Tully-Fisher relationship, which is openly just an empirical relationship, not a "law based on first principles" or anything as rigid as that, I have a few links below from googling that name. It's basically an observation of what seems to be happening, with a working equation (several actually - see the Wikipedia reference below) that tries to relate galactic brightness to the mass of the galaxy as a proxy, and from that determine the rotational velocity of stars at varius distances - radii - from the center of rotation.

http://www.noao.edu/staff/shoko/tf.html
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.04543v1.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tully%E2%80%93Fisher_relation
http://www2.astro.psu.edu/~caryl/a480/lecture8_10.pdf

Note that Stacy McGaugh, listed in the second link above, is also listed in the authors of the current arXiv paper which started this thread. While substituting NIR for Visual brightness might yield a better result, it may not actually be following the real reason for flat rotation curves. A skeptic should always try to constructively ask, "What ELSE might be able to be causing this observation?"

Jim
jjohnson

Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

### A BIG PROBLEM for Dark Matter Believers ...

http://phys.org/news/2016-09-spiral-irr ... -dark.html

Acceleration relation found among spiral and irregular galaxies challenges current understanding of dark matter

September 21, 2016

In the late 1970s, astronomers Vera Rubin and Albert Bosma independently found that spiral galaxies rotate at a nearly constant speed: the velocity of stars and gas inside a galaxy does not decrease with radius, as one would expect from Newton's laws and the distribution of visible matter, but remains approximately constant. Such 'flat rotation curves' are generally attributed to invisible, dark matter surrounding galaxies and providing additional gravitational attraction.

Now a team led by Case Western Reserve University researchers has found a significant new relationship in spiral and irregular galaxies: the acceleration observed in rotation curves tightly correlates with the gravitational acceleration expected from the visible mass only.

"If you measure the distribution of star light, you know the rotation curve, and vice versa," said Stacy McGaugh, chair of the Department of Astronomy at Case Western Reserve and lead author of the research.

The finding is consistent among 153 spiral and irregular galaxies, ranging from giant to dwarf, those with massive central bulges or none at all. It is also consistent among those galaxies comprised of mostly stars or mostly gas.

In a paper accepted for publication by the journal Physical Review Letters and posted on the preprint website arXiv, McGaugh and co-authors Federico Lelli, an astronomy postdoctoral scholar at Case Western Reserve, and James M. Schombert, astronomy professor at the University of Oregon, argue that the relation they've found is tantamount to a new natural law.

An astrophysicist who reviewed the study said the findings may lead to a new understanding of internal dynamics of galaxies.

"Galaxy rotation curves have traditionally been explained via an ad hoc hypothesis: that galaxies are surrounded by dark matter," said David Merritt, professor of physics and astronomy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, who was not involved in the research. "The relation discovered by McGaugh et al. is a serious, and possibly fatal, challenge to this hypothesis, since it shows that rotation curves are precisely determined by the distribution of the normal matter alone. Nothing in the standard cosmological model predicts this, and it is almost impossible to imagine how that model could be modified to explain it,without discarding the dark matter hypothesis completely."

This deserves close monitoring ...
BeAChooser

Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

### Re: In the dark about dark matter

BeAChooser wrote:http://phys.org/news/2016-09-spiral-irregular-galaxies-current-dark.html

Acceleration relation found among spiral and irregular galaxies challenges current understanding of dark matter

The comment section at physorg is hilarious...

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -

D_Archer

Posts: 1168
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

### Re: In the dark about dark matter

New Findings Muddy Understanding Of Dark Matter

"I worked hard for dark matter to explain what I was seeing, but every time I thought I solved the problem, it seemed like I was adding epicycles -- adding complications to a theory to explain these simple observations," he said.

.. other models of dark matter had the potential to explain their findings, such as one where dark matter behaves like a "superfluid" that flows without viscosity, or another where dark matter particles line themselves up in gravitational fields much as iron filings do in magnetic fields.

How much closer does this have to be to electromagnetism, before they see it as a possibility?
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Zyxzevn

Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

### Re: In the dark about dark matter

saul wrote:While I agree with your criticisms of dark matter theory, they are just that: criticisms of an existing theory. What is needed is A BETTER THEORY to describe galactic rotation. Until that one arrives, well, there's not much there to push as a replacement is there.

One that I am hopeful about is the Conformal Gravity treatment, which models galactic rotation quite well.

I recently re-derived Maxwell's equations from a basic fluid dynamic aether model and found Maxwell's version to be mathematically inconsistent. I based my theory on Paul Stowe's, who found the relation between gravity and the electric field E:

With my correct "Maxwell" equations, together with Stowe's, we can come to a simple, elegant and complete "theory of everything", rejecting relativity as well as "gauge freedom" and therewith Quantum Magic:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/ ... Everything

While the equations are all in differential notation, it should not be very difficult to rewrite them in integral form and work out a model for describing galactic rotation.

An interesting detail in our model is that the magnetic field B represents the rotational part of a Laplacian c.q. Helmholtz decomposition of the bulk aether flow velocity field [v]. This should apply both on a subatomic scale as well as on a galactic scale....

And since herewith we can describe all known "fundamental" forces of nature within ONE unified model, we don't need "dark matter", "virtual particles" and what have you to straighten things out..

lamare

Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: Goor, The Netherlands.

### Re: In the dark about dark matter

They just adapted some parameters, and claim that dark matter still do it.
La fin du mond?
ΛCDM is fully consistent with SPARC acceleration law

They just keep holding on to their theory of invisible unicorns.
With a change of some parameters, their simulations can spew out something similar to the new observations.

Reading the paper I did not understand what type of "dark matter" they were simulating,
nor do I see what kind of assumptions they did to make the simulation possible.

Looking into their paper it seems that they added second order effects,
instead of the primary forces like electromagnetism and gravity.
That is often done to make simulations easier.
The "dissipative collapse" seems such a second order effect, which is the primary subject
of their paper.

They forget that in gravity-only cosmology, gravity must be the force behind that collapse.
So they seem to be doubling the force of gravity by using it twice.

Watching some of the simulations, I also wonder if they know that in REAL galaxies,
new stars are in the inside. And not on the outside as many simulations and models produce.
In simulations, the formation of the spiral shape is often a product of coincidence, instead
of real physics.
And the speed of stars in a galaxy are usually not affected by a "collapse", but
by a clear force.

In a model that includes electromagnetism, the compression of gas and the
structured movement of stars can be explained with well-known electromagnetic forces.
Which leads to the conclusion that their simulation proves that electromagnetism can
actually be responsible for the rotation-velocity that is now attributed to "dark matter".

Electromagnetism makes matter also more visible, which explains why there is a direct
relation between the rotation force and the visibility of mass in that region.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Zyxzevn

Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

### Re: In the dark about dark matter

I've replied to this comment:

saul wrote:While I agree with your criticisms of dark matter theory, they are just that: criticisms of an existing theory. What is needed is A BETTER THEORY to describe galactic rotation. Until that one arrives, well, there's not much there to push as a replacement is there.

...here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16520&p=116036#p116036
Keith Ness

Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:53 am

### Re: In the dark about dark matter

Zyxzevn wrote:Dark matter itself is a hypothesis.
What is observed is that the visible objects in galaxies have a unexplained constant rotation-velocity.

This is not quite correctly explained, Zyxzevn.
The predicted velocity of stars due to the visible matter in a spiral galaxy is a rise to a peak outside of the galaxy bulge and then a decreasing curve.
The measured velocity of stars due to the visible matter in a spiral galaxy is a rise to a peak outside of the galaxy bulge and a not decreasing curve (close to flat or even rising).
The mismatch can be explained by adding more not-visible matter - the dark matter halo (N.B. more like a ball as you know). There is no "automatic" assumption - adding the matter does make the predictions match the measurements according to the known laws of physics.

There is no idea of "objects can attract each other in ring." of "some kind of chain". It is stars being attracted by mass in the form of the galaxy bulge + galaxy disc + (maybe) halo stars + that dark matter halo.

What convinces most scientists that dark matter exists is the big body of evidence that dark matter exists - see dark matter - observational evidence. There are some scientists that prefer to modify GR but that has been worked on for over 30 years now and not explained all of the different lines of evidence.
BennyFan

Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 7:14 am

Next