Dark Matter

Yeah, pretty impressive, huh?

Nah, that is just a galaxy surrounded (or having an intervening cloud) by gas, dust, etc. It is just ordinary matter not lit up yet.

Don't make me go back to one of my previous posts about Dark suckers

There is no gravity, the earth sux.

So you are saying that black holes got dark by ingesting all the cosmic soot (not carbon)? Dark matter compressed into a discontinuity = black hole...

It makes a good joke, and that's about all, I know you didn't really mean that.

My Bible reads thus: (New International Version)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God calledthe vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place,and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

It does not say before the beginning, or even at the beginning. Note that verse 1 clearly states "In the beginning"....does this not immediately evoke thinking that is not the actual start of time, but a point in time where conditions were as stated. Thus when God spoke, "Let there be light, He was not starting the Big Bang, but was addressing the darkness on the face of the deep (space), and commanded the first stars to congeal and initiate fusion, and emit electromagnetic radiation, etc. Then someone might argue, but if these were the first stars (pure hydrogen stars with only helium as the first byproduct, supposedly), then where does all the matter come from for earth to be created? Good question. Perhaps then, the only way to answer that, and be consistent, is to infer that God is referring only to locality of space that contains our solar system, and He was only commanding Sol to wake up. I was not there, but I wish I could have had a way of witnessing that day.

E=MC2 Energy equals Mass times the speed of light,

Then perhaps DE=DMC2

DE=Dark Energy=Dark Mass times the speed of light squared.

Whereas mass is merely a form of concentrated energy,perhaps dark mass is simply a concentrated form of Dark Energy.

Perhaps dark matter is slowly converting into dark energy,leaking from dark matter black holes,similar to the decay of normal black holes.

A dark matter black hole would be invisible by normal means, as would the energy that it leaks out.

These are the kinds of things that wake you up in the middle of the night and make you go"HUH! What was I thinkin'".

Maybe it is DARK TIME causing the problem and not DARK MATTER, perhaps they should look for CLEAR MATTER instead.

For instance, clear matter could be everywhere (like gravity) but it can't be seen because it is so weak that it only becomes apparent when looking through telescopes over vast distances (like a haze or fog in the line of sight).

It is thin (and invisible at a particle level by any detectors we currently have) but it absorbs blue light (or like a porous fabric of super-miniature black holes leaking into the 4th dimension causing 'units' of 'time' to change) giving the impression of every distant object being seen through a red veil - which has been explained by the theory of an expanding universe causing a RED SHIFT.

Whereas if static (or not expanding as much as first thought) the units of time at those distances affect gravity in the region that could explain the anomalies of measured v calculated values of the spirals of galaxies.

A bit like the 'Mercury' analogy where the maths at the time predicted the existence of 'new' planet that subsequently got explained away by 'new' maths.

Then perhaps HiTekRedNeK #25 with DE=DMC² might be close to home if C is looked as a ratio of 'distance/time'

.......or it might be 42

All of our present detection technology is based on the electromagnetic spectrum.

I think there is more to the energy in the universe than electromagnetism.

Just as our eyes can see only in a narrow spectrum,and limit our vision,electromagnetism is limited in it's spectrum.

Spooky action at a distance is one of the things that escape definition according to our current model of the universe.Even Einstein scratched his head about that.

We are seeing the universe "through a glass darkly" .

We are simply a couple of pounds of matter trying to understand the universe.

We grasp only a part of it,and even if we survive for another million years,I don't think we will have all of the answers.

Horace: The red shift is an observable that is related strictly to normal zero relative velocity atomic lines (of hydrogen, or perhaps iron, or even sodium), but in the "red" spectrum, these lines have shifted by an amount consistent with a Doppler shift, that affects all spectral wavelengths, but these markers definitely tell us what is going on.

There is no red veil. Impossible. We do see dimly as though through a veil, but it is not the supposed red veil you mention, it is our finite way of thinking as compared to the infinite, all powerful, eternal One. It also has nothing to do with she who must not be named, else all hell break loose in one room.

I do not want to argue your concept of stretched time, as this is clearly part of the fabric of space-time. Generally, time also is stretched even by the sun, the moon, and the earth's gravity wells. Obviously, the greater the mass, the greater the effect on time.

It is possible that black holes strip matter of everything except a property of matter that we call "dark matter.," which is immune to normal gravity.

It is also possible that spinning galaxies generate a field,presently undetectable, due to the bending of spacetime,similar to electricity being generated by breaking lines of force in a magnetic field.

In other words dark matter may be a side effect of a large mass rotating in space.

I realize my posts are all over the map,and sometimes I ramble on about non relevant things,but once in a while even a blind hog will root up an acorn.

"...all over the map..." <grin> Forgiven.

I enjoy ( _{however briefly, at one sitting} ) perusing such discussions, to see if anything truly awe-inspiring is therein divulged.

All-too-often, I perceive a WHOLE LOT of "skipping-over-the-foundation-and-framework" in order to construct the roof.

Re (your post 28): "We grasp only a part of it, and even if we survive for another million years, I don't think we will have all of the answers" AGREED!

Re: OP ~ "Gas accumulated in these dimples, and compressed into stars by gravity."

and

"I believe it started with a perturbation in primordial space time itself, amplified by the accumulation of matter."

For decades, since my certification-training for diving, I have been acutely aware of the Gas Laws ... and it never ceases to amaze me how many times I see the SILENT exultations insisting that: "for OUR purposes, at THIS POINT in the discussion, these Laws did NOT exist." {Emphatic Period}

Not only have we "skipped-over" (supposedly eons-and-eons of Time) the "condensation of hydrogen and helium into stars" (?) [Uh...the THEORY/theories DO state that only hydrogen and helium were initially "condensed" out of that cooling-energy from the "big-bang", don't they? Correct me if I missed a thread somewhere, please.]...

but, ALSO: regarding the numerous references already made within this thread to magnetic fields; many individuals, groups, and communities of "scientists" are desperately scrounging for answers as to "what-is-dark-matter?", when we can't even fully agree on "what IS magnetic flux?" {it is ONE thing to talk about "particle spins" and "orientations" and "what-have-you", with respect to magnetic fields in a "lab containment", in an atmospheric environment. What about all the "flux" that exists in the voids of space?

(And, let us not forget, though we have learned to harness and to use electromagnetic "waves" to our mutual benefits in a plethora of ways, over an enormous spectrum of frequencies, etc.... there remains oh-so-much that we do NOT yet understand THERE, as well... waves? particles? "duality"...?

{"physicists have noted that electromagnetic radiation tends to behave more like a classical wave at lower frequencies, but more like a classical particle at higher frequencies, but never completely loses all qualities of one or the other"}

Just my "2-cents"/observation.....

Are you now saying there is an opposing gravitational potential (as in Lenz's law in magnetics) induced by the motion of the components of a galaxy in this large gravity field?

That dark matter is nothing more than a "back gp"?

But if dark matter didn't produce gravity (which I assume you mean by "immune to normal gravity") it wouldn't be able to account for the observed behaviour of galaxies (in rotation) which was why dark matter was postulated in the first place.

You stated, "which was why dark matter was postulated in the first place". My question is...... Is unexplained galaxy movement the only reason dark matter was postulated, or are there other theories and observations of the universe that dark matter can fit nicely into .

Quite possibly, I'm not up to speed with the latest developments.

'...Is unexplained galaxy movement the only reason dark matter was postulated...'

.

Yeah, unexpected/counter-predicted velocities was the initial and popularly sufficient reason to postulate and promote the idea of this missing stuff wit all the right characteristics to prove all out previous calculations aND assumption have been error-free.

.

The old 20:80 rule, 20% of the universe shines and 80% doesn't.

Something I've been wondering about, how does potential energy calculate into the mix. Supposedly, the farther away something is, the faster it is moving away from us. The rates indicate that things are going faster than if they were coasting down from a single push from the big bang. If so, how do you inject fresh potential energy into a system? If there are forces accelerating distant bodies away from us, then does that not reduce the total potential energy of the system? From the math side, potential energy is convertible to kinetic energy, which is convertible to mass. I haven't really heard of a treatment of the universe including the potential energy to mass equivalence.

The thing is, 'dark matter' solution isn't really a nice fit without some change to our generally accepted laws of physics....and if we need to reconsider the laws of physics, there is no need to keep 'dark matter' around having failed at its sole purpose..

.

Consider that it isn't merely a case of the galaxies rotation suggesting far more mass than we account for by observation of gasses, stars, etc. Merely more mass isn't sufficient. It has to be distributed in something like a donut outside the observable galaxies in order for the motion to be what is measured.

We don't see regular matter forming many donut shaped galaxies with mass concentrated at the periphery. Yet for dark matter to explain the rotation of galaxies, that is what is required. This suggests that dark matter does not behave like normal matter with respect to gravity....so this is already outside the standard model.

At any rate if this stuff is donutting around at the perifery of galaxies, it seems like coli ding galaxies should provide some evidence for or against the concept. There should be some significant gradients of dark matter density at the collision and possibly some unusual gravitational lensing.

Note also that the the rotation rate of spiral galaxies can be consistently predicted by the luminosity Since luminosity is decidedly not a property of dark matter, unless dark matter is strongly correlated with normal matter, it suggests, normal matter is playing the largest role with respect to rotation.

.

So here are some possibilities:

Perhaps our measurements of the rotation rate are confoneed by a common but erroneous assumption. How much of the arc have we mearured for any of these?

.

Perhaps all the motion in the galaxies does not represent orbit. Perhaps we have measured correctly, and the galaxies are being flung apart perhaps due to some thing similar to inflation.

.

Perhaps something like frame dragging is much stronger on galactic scales. What may appear as fast rotation to us might, in the frame of reference where space time is being pulled colsely with the bulk of the galaxy be a very standard rotation profile for the observable mass.

That is pretty deep water, sir! I give you a GA!

My belief (and that is all it is right now) about gravitational charge would only make one small, minor edit to gravitation is the equation reads now. That would not require getting rid of dark matter, but would characterize it to be antimatter.

This is going to sound like a ridiculous question: (1) we have waves (like radio waves for one example) that are electro-magnetic and we call them light (duality applies) when the wavelength is in the range of our ocular sensitivity.

(2) Can there be such a thing as a wave based on the strong and/or weak nuclear forces? I really do not know, and once again forgive me if this is a question not to be asked.

TINAC hits on another conundrum. Astronomers looking way far away, for a light travel time that is a significant fraction of the age of the universe see material that is moving away from us faster. However, that material should also have been much closer to us when the observed light was emitted. The conundrum is that the observed light appears to be from far, far away, when it should have been emitted much closer. I can see where the inflation idea gets traction, but it also raises the question that if space gets bigger, the speed of light gets faster or Plancks constant may also get bigger over time.

I'm sure everything is waves as far as nuclear strong and weak forces. Electromagnetism waves, gravity waves, Rose Festival Princesses wave and the president waves. QED

I'm no authority on these subjects...but I do enjoy conjecturing.

The strong interaction is of limited range, so waves would need to be either:

A wave in degenerate matter (neutron star?) where th range poses no real limit, or;

A wave within a single (massive) nucleus....I think there is good evidence for this, but it might not be the type of wave you had in mind, or;

The wave needs to be sufficiently energetic to jump the boudary gap, as in a sustained fission reaction.

.

I'm not sure, but I think lasing (not the emitted light, but the population inversion) is an example of a wave of weak force as electrons are interacting in a wavelike fashion.

A population of neutrons can have wave characteristics and should be governed by weak interaction....I think superfluid He3 falls in that category as well...and shows some pretty interesting effects.

As to lasing and population inversion, are we talking about optical lasers, infrared, or masers? I am pretty sure that all optical lasers, the quantum levels are the electron wave-functions (atomic orbitals) (or molecular orbitals as is the case), and yes, according to Einsteins "A" equation, the atoms or molecules could be absorbing or emitting, since the coefficient is the same one. If population inversion, then of course the upper level is predominant, and the transition is emitting light. Resonance demands optical components that allow gain to take place (as in one high reflectance mirror, and one parallel semi-transparent mirror).

Do you think it is a good possibility for the so-called polyneutron clusters to exist? Supposedly, these can be stable on a surface (assume graphene or metal lattice), rapidly forming after a few cold neutrons are present on the surface. The cold ones should not have a really long lifetime, since nearly any atom will exhibit a high absorption cross-section for these. I have even heard of something called proto-matter mists, somewhat analogous to surface plasmon polaritrons (electron clouds effectively), but I have no idea how to make them, or use them....yet.

Apparently, the availability of these "mists" is important in the explanation of some Japanese carbon arc experiments in water vapor and condensed water, where elements are found in post arc analysis that were definitely not present initially. Very interesting work, apparently proven transmutations of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen taking place.

I was thinking about lasing weak interaction as it is a coordination of electrons...being fermions, which interact via weak interaction....though charge-less fermions are probably a better choice.

.

As to polyneutron clusters, there would need to be a nucleus involved such as with a halo nucleus, or some exotic conditions to allow such metastability.

Neutrons are obligate socializers....they simply must be with one or more protons. Solitary thermal neutrons are not stable and beta decay with a half life of a little over 10 minutes.

Neutrons will also beta decay if there are too few neutrons for the number of proton.....so two neutrons together would probably become deuterium is a pretty short time.

I think the cold neutron (think 10,000 times or more the absorption cross-section by Uranium, same ratios with other elements, atoms, and ions), will not be around long enough to stay solitary. There is something odd about these being on a surface, such that they will want to make clusters, there even seems to be magic numbers associated with it. Not a far stretch at all for Beta event, but even better is neutron capture (cold neutron, or even a cluster) by hydrogen (proton) to make Deuterium or something heavier. Brillouin Energy company is counting on it.

There is a term I come across the other day that I find interesting, when a photon is being prepared, it is given a point of direction? So what does that? So, that lead me to this article.

http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-just-discovered-a-new-nucleus-shape-and-it-could-ruin-our-hopes-of-time-travel

Does this mean that if the nuclei could be completely oriented and frozen in time (due to short pulsed laser for example) that light would only be emitted in one direction, with also a singularity of angular dispersion?

You're trying to mix Newtonian and Quantum mechanics together. That usually leads to a misunderstanding of one or the other.

Does the concept of atomic coherence present a problem to you? If the atoms were totally symmetric (by virtue of their electronic structures), how in heck could they "oriented" in the first place? My question was more rhetorical than practical. I do not think any such oriented light emission is possible. Einstein's laws of spontaneous and stimulated light emission do not provide for this. Stimulated light emission has to be in the same direction of travel as the photon passing by the atomic or molecular state, so in that sense only.

Polarized light is one form of photon orientation. This type of oriented light is used in RF, visible and even X-Ray wavelengths.

I was just trying to warn you and other readers that mixing Quantum and Newtonian mechanics together will often baffle more than it explains anything. There are certainly times when both are needed to explain a phenomena. Also the universe itself obviously works with both mechanics at all times.

Remember "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." R. Feynman (?)

Thank you. Even polarized light had to be emitted somewhere, and it probably wasn't emitted with plane or circular polarization. I was attempting to imply that getting an atom to only emit photons in one particular vector and not any other (when an ensemble of atoms is presented the opportunity to emit light) is probably an impossibility, the way I understand spontaneous emission of radiation.

AFAICT, there is not a way to "orient" individual atoms (not bound to each other in a condensate a 0 K) so every atom in the ensemble space (a vacuum other than the few atoms) would each emit the photon on spherical vector (0,0), or (π/2,π/2) either.

There would be an equal statistical chance of intercepting a photon in any angular sector on the 4π spherical symmetry of space around the atom.

So how is a coherent laser beam emitted by an LED?

Technically a LED and a laser diode are different devices. An LED does not create coherent light, just effectively monochromatic light. However, your point is well made.

In all lasers (solid state, gas, liquid) inside the light producing media nearly all of the light gets absorbed and emitted many times because that light is not at the correct phase so that a node exists at the transition plane to leave the light producing cavity. The small fraction of light that does align with having a node at the transition plane leaves the laser as coherent light.

Typically LED's are not engineered the same as Laser diode (which is a special class of LED, but with optical elements that form an active cavity over the diode). Laser diodes are very coherent indeed, and angular dispersion is low. A normal LED is not particularly coherent (all phases present within the spectral bandwidth), and the light would spread out essentially in all directions but for the collection lens that collimates the output somewhat. Lasers are intrinsically coherent (all the light leaving is in phase), and also much more monochromatic than LED light. Stimulated emission of radiation requires that the next emitted photon be in lock step with the photon causing the emission.

http://www.rfwireless-world.com/Terminology/LED-vs-Laser.html

just one example of thousands of pages detailing information about LED vs. laser diode.

The information on the linked page is somewhat suspect.

It lists as a defining property of lasers that the light be collimated. Laser diodes don't lase collimated, lenses are required for that.

It lists the e/o efficiencies for LEDs to range between 10% and 20%, but diode lasers to range between 30% and 70%. I actually can't find good data on this. While I suspect 70% might be possible for the very best laser diodes, I doubt 30% is the worst.

There is also the claim that the wavelength lengths in which LEDS and laser diodes operate range from tens of millimeters to a little less than 2 millimeters.

.

Hopefully most of the other 1000s of pages on LEDs and laser diodes do a better job of detailing reliable information.

2mm? laser diodes are available with peaks down to 100s of nm.

_{Right? A page presentin itself as an authority providing dependable basic information ought to at least be able to get the units correct.}

Wouldn't that be a maser? Visible light is in range 400 - 700 nm.

You're trying to mix Newtonian and Quantum mechanics together. That usually leads to a misunderstanding of one or the other.

Yes ... except in my case it leads to misunderstanding both .......

Yeah me too. There really is not a clean bridge between the two realms, at least none I have learned of. Atoms, molecules, and sub-atomic particles do things that classical objects cannot begin to. Unless someone here can have a probability of being on both sides of a wall (boundary) (as in quantum tunneling).

Usually the AND probability on that for anything large enough to see if definitively zero.

HTRN: "The search for dark matter so far has yielded nothing,after millions of dollars spent.

IMHO:

There is no dark matter...."

Personal theories such as yours would not be permitted in the Physics Forums, but I appreciate the flexible attitude here, so discussions such as this are possible. However, you seem to be wrong:

http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-say-we-might-have-found-dark-matter-while-detecting-gravitational-waves

http://www.zmescience.com/research/discoveries/dark-boson-60873/

http://phys.org/news/2016-09-massive-holes-trail-stars-dark.html

Orville Wright: 'If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance.', ...

I am not a physicist,nor ever claimed to be one.

This was posted under the General Discussion topic.

I simply read a lot,and form my own,often mistaken ideas and theories.

I am always open to constructive criticism,and adjust my opinions accordingly.

The first part of my posting is true,reference the link I provided;the second part is simply my opinion,not a postulate,theory or declaration of fact.

I appreciate the links you provided,but the superior attitude I will simply ignore.

I don't claim to be superior to you or anybody else. Telling you you're wrong doesn't imply it either. It seems you're not so open to constructive criticism after all.

HTRN is not wrong, his expressed opinion appears to be wrong - - for now.

Dark matter will not be "dark matter" any more than Africa can any longer in any sense be called the "dark continent" (for lack of knowledge about these lands and her peoples). Someone out there simply chose to use the word "dark" to describe something we collectively are totally and completely ignorant about.

Once we know what this "stuff" is, and it isn't ordinary matter, it will no longer be dark, it will be called by its rightful name, whatever that is.

It is all in how we approach people to let them know they err. It is a delicate matter, in most instances, and I could be wrong if I don't stop being mistaken.

My general attitude to comments made here is they are a matter of opinion - right or wrong - and as valid as anybodies.

And whilst I might disagree with a point of view, it is not for me to say they are wrong. I might say I disagree and express a conflicting view - and support this by justified objective argument.

Saying someone's opinion is 'wrong' is very subjective and comes over as holier-than-thou at times . Probably not intentional but nevertheless patronising - and understandably inviting personal retaliation.

"Wrong" in the sense of outside the widely held opinions in general circulation at the present. Hell, for all I know he is as correct in his assertions as anyone else, on the subject. It is one that is highly complex, but there are splendid examples of data these days that is much harder to interpret in a way that leads to theories that do not hold water.

This is not my field of expertise, and some may wonder if I have one. I assure them I do, but it is down to the size of a tomato patch now.

I am not offended by being told I am wrong,I most often am wrong.

I did not claim my opinion was scientific fact or substantiated theory.

It was simply an opinion,and I defined it as such.

Your links were well received, and were constructive,and I do not object to them in any way.

Any light in a dark tunnel is welcome.

I have learned much from your postings,as I have your most recent.

The implication of your superiority was that my opinion would not even be permitted in a physics forum,to which exclusive membership you seem to belong,and that you condescend to participating in this forum because it is loosely structured and will allow anyone to participate.

If I am wrong about your attitude,my apologies to you.

I was not referring to any random physics forum, but THE Physics Forums, and stating a fact that their rules do not allow personal theories (of anyone) to be discussed. Only the well known and accepted theories of major scientists can be discussed! Anyone can join and participate. I am so far down the totem pole to be insignificant. I accept your apology. I also apologise if I misunderstood any of your posts.

As Groucho Marks once said:"I would not be a member of a club that would have me as a member."

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others"

-Groucho

"Outside of a dog,a book is man's best friend.Inside of a dog,it is too dark to read."

Groucho M.

No one can ever say Groucho Marks was unprincipled.

What is all this about eyes and camels? Are we talking large sunshades, and little camels on cigarettes? You do know the Camel depicted on a pack of "Camels" is female, don't you? There are twenty little camels inside.

Those rules sound a bit narrow minded. The Flat Earth Brigade is still going strong.

It seems Einstein and Newton would not have been welcome.

Yep, let's keep it clean, fellas. (So far, I have not seen any ladies tip toeing in.)

I think we need a second thread on this that starts with what is the consensus of the current crop of our most prominent Higgsians on this subject. In my particle physics gut I feel that the dark matter thing may be connected to a Higgs exception, but what do I know?

", but what do I know?"

I agree with that part.

And what do you know? Don't keep it to yourself.

Here we go, again.

Where is or what value is half way between any real number and infinity?

Does zero = infinitely small?

Are photons truly massless particles?

Maybe there is a way to pass a camel through the eye of a needle...or a very small, very massive particle through the Earth or any hunk or drop or other atomic particle thereof without any of the stuff here slowing it down whatsoever.

Lah-dee-dah.

'...Where is or what value is half way between any real number and infinity?...'

(Real number + infinity amount) ÷ 2 = infinite amount

.

'...Does zero = infinitely small?...'

No. 'Infinitesimally' small values approach zero and for simp life cation can sometimes be approximated as zero...but that does not warrant an 'equals sign'.

.

'...Are photons truly massless particles?...'

Does this question refer to 'rest mass'? I have yet to experience any photons at rest, but I suspect zero mass, as getting up to c with a rest mass would require a lot more than observed.

.

All information freely available in the land of big eyes and tiny camels.

Worthy response.

I dunno. Maybe the camel particle I am thinking of is an exception to the Higgs Field.

The Grand Summary Semi-unified Theory (more properly Fuzzy Dim Grasp?) is a great idea, especially if there is a truly sound unification of the mathematical and physical precepts embedded in the Fuzzy Dim Grasp so that internal coherence minimizes the fuzziness and dimness. Throughout the history of physics (quantum to astro), the infinity thing and the everything-is-ultimately-hooked-to-everything-else thing have been the paragons of fuzziness.

Hear, hear!

Fuzzy Dim Grasp, because if it isn't fuzzy, the focus is surely too tight.

I propose consolidating the poorly understood/explained phenomena. Even if new understanding is not generated in this synthesis, it will still be less cluttered and give the appearance of progress....

Okay, so on comogical scales, our explanations for movements is weak. Two prominent examples being the lack of good explanations (without inventing additional things lacking good evidence/explanation) for either the inflation or the galactic rotation profiles.

We really shouldn't let those count as two distinct problems. Perhaps inflation occurs more like turbulent boiling than rising raisin pudding. Perhaps the boiling is preferentially kicked off mid line in galaxies accounting for the rotation profiles.

It needs a good name to sell the merger (and reduced count) of our ignorance. Preferably not so negative as 'dark matter'.... 'dim' seems more appropriate. And something describing the effect on large scale motions.... we could describe it as 'grasp'.

There, perfect. It can be sold as 'Dim Grasp'. The idea that inflation and anomalous rotation profiles are so poorly explained that we should just consider it the same problem until we can prove that isn't the case...... or alternately the idea that a great reduction in problems may be achievable through organization.

How about velocity induced mass?

Relativity theory says that if something is moving relative to your frame of reference, it's mass gets larger, until at the speed of light it becomes infinite. There's a lot of mass out there moving at relativistically significant speed in our frame of reference. How much unobservable mass does that explain?

I guess it would also mean that the total mass of the universe will depend on where you look at it from and how fast you are moving.

If you were the only mass in the universe,and you were moving at a steady speed,how could you tell you were moving?

If you were moving at the speed of light, how could you tell?

The point is that I am not the only mass in the universe and if there was a B-B from God's Red Ryder B-B gun with the compass on the stock and the thing that tells time and it happened to be going at 99.9999999% (or maybe a few more 9's to the right of the decimal)of the speed of light, then the unobserved mass in the universe might just be explained.

Motion implies in relation to something. Without that something on which to base the relation the requirements for motion are not satisfied.

It seems a lot like asking 'If you were the only thing in the universe and you were involved in a high speed impact, how much damage would be done?'

Some folks can hit themselves in the forehead pretty hard. Especially if there's a beer can in their hand.

But there is no beer can in the universe that contains only a single person.

If the beer can isn't really a requirement, then I guess the sole person in the universe would know their hand has been moving when it strikes their head and recalls their hand being in a different location not that long ago.

I suppose whether or not the speed at which they stuck theirself might be judged 'light', might depend on how responsible the sole person feels for whatever caused everything else in the universe to get up and leave (including the beer) without him.

I suppose that if the sole person in the universe hit him/her/itself in the forehead hard enough, they might see stars. Woah! a new beginning of the universe mythology.

Answer: total destruction... or not. Depends on if you were Schrodinger's cat or not.

How could the only thing in the universe be involved in a high speed collision? Be reflected back into himself at the boundary of the universe?

If you were the only mass in the universe, and you were moving at a steady speed, how could you tell you were moving?

I don’t think you could tell you were moving at a steady speed, even if there is other mass in the universe. Newton’s 1^st law. It’s like when looking out of a railway carriage and can’t tell whether it’s your train or the other one that’s moving.

More to the point is acceleration and rotation. In Newton’s bucket experiment, when the water rotates the surface goes down in the middle, due to centrifugal force, and still does if the bucket is stopped but the water continues rotating (pretty obvious without doing the experiment). Newton concluded that rotation is relative to absolute space (same for linear acceleration). Nowadays the idea of absolute space is frowned upon, but if it’s not that, how does the water know it is rotating? Would centrifugal force exist if there were no other matter in the universe (rather hard to arrange!). I believe one theory is inertia is caused by all the other mass in the universe, (Mach’s principle, or more properly, conjecture). The mechanism is unknown, but if the effect varies inversely as distance (as opposed to distance² for gravity) the effect would vary directly with distance, as the mass in a radial shell of given thickness varies as distance². So it’s mostly due to distant matter, and inertia doesn’t change between eg a point on Earth’s surface and a point out in space.

The motion is about the center of the frame of reference. Thus, any particle in the water will be observed to rotate about that axis. I fail to see what is absolute about that, other than it does not require an external reference point.

Agreed, maybe Newton was right and there is an absolute frame of reference, in which case rotation is relative to that, and centrifugal effects would still occur if there were no other matter in the universe. But I believe current thinking is against that idea and that inertia is caused in some way by the other matter in the universe. But I'm no expert.

Something from wiki on the subject

You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning. The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your body. Why should your arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling? Why should they be dangling freely when the stars don't move?

Mach's principle says that this is not a coincidence—that there is a physical law that relates the motion of the distant stars to the local inertial frame. If you see all the stars whirling around you, Mach suggests that there is some physical law which would make it so you would feel a centrifugal force. There are a number of rival formulations of the principle. It is often stated in vague ways, like "mass out there influences inertia here". A very general statement of Mach's principle is "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe."

I still think inertia is intrinsic. At least it is when I try to get my dog to get up off my chair.

Could be. You're in good company with Newton

I have it on good authority that dogs that do not wish to be picked up can increase their apparent mass (weight) by at least a factor of 2. That's why some of them are called: "Two Dogs", right?

Let sleeping dogs lie. Saves a lot of trouble.

The only problem is the volumetric expansion effect. Probably a temporal-spatial dilation related thing. My dog can expand from something the size of a coffee can to something that can entirely occupy a king sized bed. The dog also has shown a skill at manipulation of gravity by levitating to counter tops. Usually this happens around midnight or when no one is looking. A Schrodinger's dog sort of thing.

What is this dog named, "Tricky Pete"?

Maybe Heisenberg is also a good name for a pooch whose position and momentum are quite uncertain.

The dog is Kaylee, 10 pounds, 3/8 Chihuahua, 1/4 Jack Russell Terrier and 3/8 undetermined, probably extraterrestrial.

Yeah, my Billydog is part extra. Extra barky, extra hungry, extra athletic, and extraordinary ball player, and extra protective. As to breed he is out of this world, mostly old German full-size Schnauzer, some shepherd mixed breed, with some Alf thrown in.

"If you see all the stars whirling around you, Mach suggests that there is some physical law which would make it so you would feel a centrifugal force."

Hmmm... a philosopher at the controls of "Big Muskie" ("digging deep").

So : a blind person would not feel the same effect as one who "sees" the stars spinning...? I don't think so.

(That word "intrinsic" resonates here, as well...)

Me thinks that old "butterfly effect" might be a bigger organ in this universe than simply spooky action at a distance.

Thought experiments are indeed "stimulating". The trick is to not get dragged too far into the tar pits, fully embracing every little thing that (any)body else *imagines*.

I don't think "seeing" should be taken literally. It would also apply to inanimate objects eg balls hanging on strings.

There clearly is a physical reason for inertia, hence centrifugal and acceleration forces, whether or not it has been (or can be) written as a formula. The question is whether it is due to absolute space or to distant matter. As we can't do an experiment in a universe devoid of any matter but the bit we're studying, it may be impossible to answer.

It is called "Dark Matter" because it warps spacetime,as matter would.

The only thing it has in common with baryonic matter is the ability to warp spacetime.

Large amounts of warped spacetime have been detected around galaxies,so it is presumed that there is some unseen matter at work there.

All galaxies have a black hole at the center,and they must be rotating,due to the conservation of energy principle.

Perhaps there is an unknown effect generated by a spinning black hole as it drags spacetime around, and warps the ZPEF,much as a conductor moving in a magnetic field generates a current flow in the conductor.

It may have an amplifying effect on gravity,giving the appearance of extra mass(Dark Matter).

Once upon a time we did not know what the wind was,but we could see it's effects.

Now we know,and can explain it in simple terms.

Perhaps one day, we will achieve that with "Dark Matter".

As for the expansion of spacetime,it may not be caused by an increase in internal energy,but rather a decrease in the external forces that confine our dimension of spacetime .

Nature always follows the path of least resistance,so the expansion could be due to either an internal increase in pressure,or an external decrease.

Just my $.02 worth (before tax value).

Sometimes I look in the opposite end of a telescope just to gain a better perspective.

"Perhaps there is an unknown effect generated by a spinning black hole as it drags spacetime around, and warps the ZPEF,much as a conductor moving in a magnetic field generates a current flow in the conductor.

It may have an amplifying effect on gravity,giving the appearance of extra mass(Dark Matter)."

Interesting theory. I'm glad you were able to post it without the thread being shut down, as it would might have been in the Physics Forums. This also could be the source of the dark energy that is expanding space.

"New ideas on gravity would vanquish dark matter" (Jan 18, 2016)

There is MUCH "different" thinking going-on in different circles.

I find it intriguing how some people [BOTH scientists who perform actual research, AND those who "read/suck-it-in" and "spit-back-out" as though these theories are instead "axiomatic facts"...] some people continue-on in their daily researches or beliefs, IGNORING any and all evidences that are contrary-to their own trains of thought.

As I'd posted elsewhere: What (they / we) might discover, in-the-process (of searching for "Dark Matter"), is that with which Newton summed-up The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1846)/BookIII-General Scholium (_{final paragraph}):

"And now we might add something concerning a certain most subtle Spirit which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies; by the force and action of which Spirit the particles of bodies mutually attract one another at near distances, and cohere, if contiguous; and electric bodies operate to greater distances, as well repelling as attracting the neighboring corpuscles; and light is emitted, reflected, refracted, inflected, and heats bodies; and all sensation is excited, and the members of animal bodies move at the command of the will, namely, by the vibrations of this Spirit, mutually propagated along the solid filaments of the nerves, from the outward organs of sense to the brain, and from the brain into the muscles. But these are things that cannot be explained in few words, nor are we furnished with that sufficiency of experiments which is required to an accurate determination and demonstration of the laws by which this electric and elastic Spirit operates."

“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.” ― Isaac Newton

The subject of the "aether" is one that pops in-and-out of focus. And, one (youtube) video that I found to be quite "brow-raising" points out that "the math" shows something that nobody wants to discuss. How in the universe, could each and every cubic cm of our universe be so massive as it seems to be, and under such enormous tension...(?!)

[^{I'm sure glad that *I* do not have to struggle with those kinds of {math} problems...}]

1st line ABOVE shoulda been (2017, not 2016!):

"New ideas on gravity would vanquish dark matter" (Jan 18, 2017)