Maybe Dark Matter is Not Really Matter

I am just now (after 777 yrs) starting to study texts on Loop Quantum Gravity and the many controversies of the quantum realm. I keep questioning whether the mathematics being used by Theoretical Physics are meaningful in many cases. Certainly there are questions raised by Godel's Incompleteness Theory.

With your long lived existence, I'd be anxious to hear your opinions.

The subject is far too complex for my meager mind to comprehend.

I agree with that last part.

By definition, dark matter isn't matter, it's whatever is left bending spacetime after all the matter is accounted for. And if you think that "dark matter" may be older than the "big bang", then you're not alone.

"Dark matter, which researchers believe make up about 80% of the universe's mass, is one of the most elusive mysteries in modern physics. What exactly it is and how it came to be is a mystery, but a new Johns Hopkins University study now suggests that dark matter may have existed before the Big Bang."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190807190816.htm

"Rotation curve of spiral galaxy Messier 33 (yellow and blue points with error bars), and a predicted one from distribution of the visible matter (gray line). The discrepancy between the two curves can be accounted for by adding a dark matter halo surrounding the galaxy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve

"Warped spacetime tells matter how to move. Matter tells spacetime how to bend. - Wheeler".

We don't understand how matter can warp spacetime, it just does. Einstein figured out the formulas to describe it.

Apparently matter is not the only "thing" that can warp spacetime. This guy has some ideas that are derived from first principles.

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/physicist-radical-theory-of-gravity

"Dark matter may not be matter at all."

It depends on how matter is defined. For those of you who think our government and the news media have truth, here are a couple of links:

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/9-12/features/what-is-dark-matter.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/what-dark-matter-ncna871991

"The only way it can be detected is by the defection of light waves passing by it."

No, it is by it's gravitational effect on baryonic matter. See here.

"Constructive comments are always welcome"

That's good.

You are right.I left out that property.Thanks for the reminder.

Yes, one of the many ideas to solve this mystery of dark matter is that things other than just matter cause an attraction between neutral particles. One proposed idea in this category is an additional attractive force exists between particles of mass. Although this force is significantly weaker than gravity with distances less than the diameter of the Oort cloud, this force does not attenuate with the square of the distance between objects as gravity does. Thus no additional, mysterious mass is needed. There are multiple problems with this idea, not the least of them is how does one test for a force only apparent between stars?

Another idea is localized remnants of the former occupiers of our space has caused the localizations of galaxies and globular clusters. This will also be difficult to test.

Another proposed idea is the expansion of space between stars is skewing this observation. There many theoretical and experimental problems with this proposal but when nobody knows why then anything is possible.

Perhaps matter has an undiscovered property that is stripped away as it goes "down the hole".

Like cream rising to the top of unhomogenized milk,a property that separates it from the black hole itself,otherwise it would be sucked into the black hole would it not?

There seems to be a lot of this "Dark Matter" in the center of galaxies,as well as black holes.

Perhaps it is the twin of the sub atomic particles that were separated by the event horizon,and cannot disappear without it's twin.

I know about the information theory, but maybe that is not the full story.

"...There seems to be a lot of this "Dark Matter" in the center of galaxies,..."

.

This wouldn't actually resolve the problem for which dark matter was proposed as a solution. Galaxies show a velocity magnitude distribution of stars that does not decrease as Keplers laws would suggest in something modeled as orbits around a point mass. Having a lot of dark matter in the center wouldn't explain the fact that magnitude of vellcoties of stars does not decrease much with distance from the center.

For dark matter to explain the anomaly if must have a distribution unlike that of visible matter. It needs a distribution more like a toroid or ring than a sphere.

Here is a link that is very interesting concerning the shape of dark matter.

https://www.space.com/14768-dark-matter-universe-photos.html

Are you talking about radial velocity or relative velocity?

Perhaps the velocities are affected by some undescribed effects of frame dragging,such that light leaving the center is slowed down,and light from the edges is less affected,giving the appearance of relatively unchanged velocity?

The unexpected velocity profile of spiral galaxies is the reason dark matter was suggested into existence. It only applies to spiral galaxies AFAIK, and it assumes that spiral galaxies are comprised of stars with stable orbits and not arms of stars being flung outward. You don't hear that last assumption talked about much. What if much like Einstein's cosmological constant being brought about by his bias towards a universe that wasn't expanding or collapsing, dark mattter has been conjured out of distain for the idea we might be being flung into space?

It looks to me like there is some form of matter that lacks some component of regular matter, and whose particles are not attracted but rather repelled from each other, yet are still bound together by gravitational fields....Perhaps this matter is created by Black Holes that strip some component from the standard model, possibly the Higgs Boson...

Dark matter is something invented to make 'new' findings fit the results of the 'old' maths. Problems of logic emerge. The accuracy of the new findings are based on the accuracy of the old maths...and as it seems they don't match - then something has to be tweaked.

I guess the answer might be in how the concepts of 'zero' and 'infinity' are applied to things in a mathematical context - somewhat in a dismissive way - for convenience.

I have been saying this and publishing it for decades. It is now possible to identify locations exactly using the principles of layered spreadsheets and relational data bases in which we do not use π as that is an approximation. By examining the equation E = MC² we see that C is speed which is a vector dependent on time and distance. distance can be accurately defined in maths but time is a concept that differs when perceived by an individual (as linear in sequence of observing) or alternatively by objective universal perception. Time cannot be many time lines in parallel as individual observers share events in time and move from one converging cone of events to another. There cannot be a future without time itself being expansion and it must be expanding into nothing as otherwise we would all be confined to a predetermined future. We can use a 3D spread sheet to accurately describe the know past and this can reveal a trend that can be extended into a hypothetical future. We can actually us this method to examine the apparent effects of gravity on light and find that the real time that a beam passes a massive object we start to receive the light or lack of light from that object and this causes the beam to be apparently bent. It is easy to model this concept on any computer with spread sheets from Lotus 123 forward. Try it.

"... otherwise we would all be confined to a predetermined future. ..."

.

What empirical evidence do you have that we are not confined to a determined future?

I realize that it might be psychologically unvomfortable to some, but that alone isn't sufficient backing to take the contrary as a given.

We are all gonna die, someday. Does that count as a determined future?

I agree with you, TINAC. Like many engineers, I hate the kind of wishy-washy imprecise techno-babble rogeralexander2 proffered as a proposed proof of anything.

I find your comment arrogant and offensive as I have suggested you try my suggestion for yourself on any layered spread spread sheet of your choice. Have you tested any of the present scientific theories yourself? I have a laboratory that I have set up and used over the years to test everything I publish on my scientific and technical website because I am challenging the advice given on the subject of the electrochemical control of corrosion on networks of pipelines globally. Please publish the basis for you opinion that my comment is "wishy washy imprecise techno-babble" . My comment and suggestion is more precise than your opinion in that it can and is being tested on computer and in case you do not realise it, computers are adding machines that are very precise.

"We are all gonna die, someday. Does that count as a determined future?" No. You are not dead now and neither am I, so there is no empirical proof that we are all going to die someday. Are you predicting the future? No, you are putting forward a theory based on linear time and that has been trashed by Stephen Hawking, Einstein etc. I suggest you swot up on Gibbs Free Energy and the Nernst/Einstein equations and get yourself a data logger and oscilloscope so that you can learn a bit about energy. I suggest that you try to explain quantum mechanics and all the ramifications surrounding quantum theory and then try to apply your knowledge to produce a G5 network App.

Computers must be deterministic and that is why the industry is trying to develop a 'quantum computer' to resolve the problem that an electron appears to be able to be in two places at once and that a switch in a computer must be able to determine 'yes', 'no' or 'both'. To do this all the energy must be removed from the system so that the electrons can be said to be in a state of superposition. In this state they are both yes and no at the same time. True and false at the same time. on and off at the same time. All of this is under investigation by Microsoft and Google at this present time but there is no proof that a quantum computer actually works.

This brings us back to dark matter and gravity because quantum theory is not deterministic (as Einstein said.) Classical computers are deterministic and can be programmed to solve real problems in real life using real codified laws of science/nature.

I have been building and programming computers since the Sinclair ZX80 and have had the luck to engage in a relationship with a nuclear chemist who was also a mathematician and an applied electronics engineer in the software/hardware development industry. Our friends included professors of nuclear physics and materials science and I have been party to scrutinising patents by NASA scientists and advanced scientific papers globally.

Enough about me, what about you Redfred?

"... I am saying that Pi cannot be defined accurately ..."

By whom? I initially suspected you mean that you could not define pi accurately, but reading a little further down you accurately define pi, meaning you are blatantly wrong there too (you do deserve high marks for remarkable consistency in that regard) .

Elaborate calculations into infinity and beyond aside,Pi has to be a resolvable number,or else how could a bubble form completely;Would it continue to form forever,never being complete?Nature solves the "problem" with finite resolution instantly;no problem.It is our problem to develop a system to express it as well as mother nature does.

Can we measure anything down to a Planck length,except theoretically?

Even if we could,the methods we used would be limited by our existing accepted standards,which themselves are suspect at that level.

Infinitesimal is smaller than a Plank length.

Can any technique resolve reality to it's absolute "uniel"* size?

*uniel: Universe element size,similar to pixel,but not a picture element,rather a unit of the smallest discreet element of existence.Not strings,strings are made of these uniels.

If ALL events are truly deterministic,then all events,past and present,are predetermined based on a very simple Newton law:All actions result in an equal and opposite reaction.

Hence,all actions are preceded by a previous and equal action,so all actions that we observe are really reactions.

Our very ability to observe is a reaction to a long complicated chain of actions/reactions.

Therefore there must have been a prime action at the beginning.

The "Big Bang" is not the beginning.

It is also a reaction.

Was there an equal implosion in some other dimension?

So what made the Big Bang go BANG?

All events are simply a link in the chain of action/reactions,even down to the electrons and strings of string theory:What struck the strings to make them vibrate?

I await your highly knowledgeable and informed opinion on this matter.

'.... relationship with a nuclear chemist who was also a mathematician and an applied electronics engineer in the software/hardware development industry. Our friends included professors of nuclear physics and materials science and I have been party to scrutinising patents by NASA scientists and advanced scientific papers globally. ...."

.

The preceding represents an appeal to authority fallacy. This fallacious argument attempts to support an argument based on the claim that some 'authority' believes it is true rather than on the actual facts of the matter. A true expert should be able to explain why something is true. A list of credentials and the threat of offense being taken if anyone dare to contradict their claimed authority is a poor substitute.

This was my reply to an insult. Your response to this remark is not on the topic of dark matter but of my credibility and thinking ability. Many of the comments on this thread refer to scientists that are long dead and whose hypotheses and theories so you are saying that we must ignore all and just rely on data and calculations? This is what I am trying to do in my explanation using layered spreadsheets/relational data bases.

Please define "layered spreadsheets" to make sure we are thinking the same thing.

A spreadsheet consists of cells to which you can assign a value. If you label each cell as a coordinate in a grid you can then produce a map. If you then use html links to relate other spreadsheets above or below you can create a 3D map in which the coordinates relate to each other by exact location and not by their direction using angles. The relationship between cell A1 on spreadsheet 1 and cell h8 on spreadsheet 5 is therefore a distance in a straight line. This does not require a calculation because it is a model of relationships. This requires visualisation by the user but can also be plotted in a 3D graph on a flat surface in the same way as CAD drawings. However, you cannot measure actual distances with a straight edge ruler on a CAD flat drawing because they vary with the perspective from which the user chooses to view the object that is viewed. I use this technique, in the field, to 3D map electrical potentials in the ground. We vary the potential of the ground in three dimensions by switching the sources of energy and thus changing the value in each 3D cell in our subject model. We then excavate to physically examine the buried pipeline that is the subject of our investigation. In order to find the location that is the subject area we must fix a point using permanent physical features that are immovable, much like sailors use lighthouses and landmarks to fix their positions. (I have used this since childhood when I engaged in sea fishing in my small rowing boat.) When considering the subject of this thread it is clear that each location must be time stamped due to the expansion of the universe. It is this time stamp that allows the fourth dimension to be 'time' as described by Stephen Hawking in his book 'A Brief History of Time.' We can never see this fourth dimension as each of us is confined to our own unique perspective and it is difficult to visualise because the expansion of the universe is from every point in the universe. You can all try all of this in practice using instruments available at retail.

So you are criticizing others for calculations when you admit that your spreadsheets are doing just that? In fact that is all that spreadsheets can do.

"...Your response to this remark is not on the topic of dark matter but of my credibility and thinking ability. ..."

.

Nope. You made this about your credibility when you argued with an appeal to authority. In fact you are still doing it. You remark quoted above is the part where you threaten to take offense if your assertion of authority is not accepted as valid/sufficient/a meaningful argument.

In short, if you haul out a claim that you rub elbows with scientists who scrutinize NASA patent applications, as support for a position you are arguing, it is laughable to claim to take offense when someone points out that the identity of your elbow rubbing buddies is immaterial to the validity of the position you arr championing.

"...Many of the comments on this thread refer to scientists that are long dead and whose hypotheses and theories so you are saying that we must ignore all and just rely on data and calculations?..."

This sentence is barely coherent. I believe i understand what you intended. However you have mischaracterized both the thread and my point as well.

There is indeed a lot reference to the work of other scientists in this thread. Note that the references do not say the work is valid because of who the scientists rubbed elbow with. These scientists are/were mortal and fallable. The strength of the work is in part because it is not considered sacred but instead is vulnerable to correction or outright retraction.

Good arguments don't reference the people making the argument. A good argument should be able to be stated by anyone. Ad homenim attacks and appeals to authority both attempt to involve the speaker suggesting the possition isn't strong enough to stand on its own.

.

On another note, I saw you mention the codified laws of nature somewhere in this thread. Can you tell me more? Who codified the natural laws? Can I get a copy? Which version do you use?

Ohms Law, Kirchhoff's Laws etc etc if the term codified laws of nature confuses you please suggest other terminology.

'Codified' is a regular word in English. The definition is not in dispute to any significant degree. If you write 'codified laws' it signals you intend the accepted definition which emtails, among other thinga the existence of a codex, i.e. a collection often arranged by subject of all currently applicable laws.

If you have such a codex, I would like to have a look. Otherwise I suggest reevaluating the way you chose which words to use. In and of itself, the was a word sounds is insufficient justification for its use in most situations. Almost always the definition of a word and that definitions applicability to the desired message is sine qua non for including that word.

Words matter... not so much because of the way it sounds, but because of what it means.

You asked me to suggest terminology but I don't know what what you are trying to say. Perhaps just leave off 'codified' if it is not codified.

truth...: You need to proof-read your stuff. Using a spell check alone is not adequate.

Good point

Thank you.

This comment is boring.

Only boring people get bored.

Faraday, Einstein, Nernst, Gibbs, .... writing is a code and needs decoding by the reader. Your comments are 'points scoring' like a child who does not understand the word 'discussion.'

The fact that you had the CHOICE to respond to my comment in any way you wanted and that I did not even know you existed before you responded shows that the future is not predetermined. Try out my suggestion on the relational spread sheet of your choice and you will find that it functions as I have said.

"... The fact that you had the CHOICE to respond to my comment in any way you wanted and that I did not even know you existed before you responded shows that the future is not predetermined. ..."

.

What proof have you about the above 'fact' you assert? To reason well, what is considered 'fact' must be well vetted. How can you know for another person that they have any choice in their action, especially one you know only through internet comments?

Moreover, how can you be certain your own decisions involve any 'choice' or 'free will' at all? Perhaps that is merely a preprogrammed feeling or belief...

Boring.

Boring that you cannot support the assumptions critical to your argument? Yes.

Boring that you have spent year of your life working on a spreadsheet process, the need for which does not stand up to the most cursory of examinations? Well, maybe not boring, but certainly tragic.

Boring is not that useful of a descriptor mainly because it is more telling of the observer than the subject. Boring betrays a lack of interest on the part of the person issuing that description.

How could someone consider a question about a project to which they have devoted year of their life, boring?

An object falling into a black hole never reaches the bottom and time is meaningless to the object.

Perhaps the gravity of the object's past,present and future are present at the same time in the "tube" and the gravitational field is stronger than calculated.

Illogical,stranger things can happen in the quantum world,so why not?

There was no spacetime, no universe as we observe it, prior to the Big Bang. Dark matter/energy is a speculative construct designed to harmonize cosmological mathematics. That's why it's so doggone hard to see or touch.

Dark gravity is a more appropriate name

https://bigthink.com/videos/neil-degrasse-tyson-dark-matter-is-a-misnomer

you are considering that dark matter could be some sort of node? possibly harmonic in nature?

am considering that "dark Matter" is a misleading description of an unknown effect of severe warping of space time;a scar,a blemish, a pimple so to speak.These deviations for flat spacetime may have been present before the big bang,and spacetime,as we know and describe it ,was forced to follow a preexisting form.

A presumption is made that empty spacetime is perfectly flat and homogeneous,but the presumption may be wrong.

Or maybe the "BigBang" was not perfectly uniform in all directions;if it was,the distribution of all matter would be uniform throughout space.Minor variations in the "BigBang" could be amplified over long time frames.

Even so-called random actions have a root cause and effect,even though it may be undetectable to us at our present sate of knowledge and abilities.

Consider a bubble.

If it is unobstructed,it will form a sphere,the shape with the most volume and least surface area.

If it strikes another bubble or obstruction,the shape will change to accommodate,always in the most space-conservative shape possible.

The same could have happened with the "BigBang"

It may not have expanded into a perfectly empty void of non-spacetime.

Some will say that nothing outside of spacetime existed before the big bang,and that spacetime created it's own space as it expanded.True,we will never know because our knowledge is limited by our ability to detect or conceive of it,but that does not mean it is not possible.

Our knowledge increases every day,and once impossible things become common place.

As we gain more and more knowledge of the "Big Picture" we realize how insignificant we are in the bigger scheme of things.

Our entire galaxy could disappear and it would not even be noticeable to an observer at a distance sufficient to even see a small pixel of the total universe.

Our galaxy is not even a single pixel.

Just one among billions of galaxies,each with billions of stars and planets.

How arrogant of us to think we have all of the answers yet,or that we ever will.

Our species will probably look back on our level of technology in 200 years and think the same as we do about the 1800's now:how primitive they were.

Higgsstrahlung...

'Dark matter' is just two words used to express the notion that we have got the wrong answer using conventional mathematics and have to make up a value to compensate for the mistake. Dark matter does not exist.

The Mathematics is fine. The problem is the conventional Physics, particularly Kepler's Laws of planetary motion that don't agree with observations.

Does this explain dark matter?

Yes, the fact that the observed motion of stars within a galaxy or globular cluster does not conform with the Physics of Kepler's Laws of planetary motion explains what is labeled with the paradox called dark matter.

How is the physics of Kepler's Laws of planetary motion expressed and communicated to you and others?

Well most people on the internet today now know how to use a hyperlink to a respected webpage.

"How is the physics of Kepler's Laws of planetary motion expressed and communicated to you and others?" So you clicked on a hyperlink? When you reached the target of that hyperlink what did you read? Please explain the characters and symbols of the encoded information and explain how this is not a formula or calculation of some kind. Any formula requires that the characters and symbols represent repeatedly observable data so that the theory can be validated. I write my own websites in HTML and also use HTML hyperlinks in my layered spreadsheets and this is why I asked YOU a question. Please explain how the errors you perceive in Kepler's Laws of planetary motion account for dark matter.

It seems that Mathematics is not the problem here. It seems the illusion of communication is the root of the problem. For the sake of thoroughness I'll attempt this one last time.

There is no error in Kepler's kinematic law when comparing planetary motion within our solar system. These laws in coordination or derivation from Newton's law of gravity have allowed us to put space probes around, past and sometimes into objects outside of the Earth. When the kinematics of stars and extra-galactic dust are measured they significantly differ from Kepler's kinematics. Specifically the outer objects move with a relatively constant angular velocity as distance from the center increases. Kepler's law anticipates the angular velocity to decrease as the distance from the center increases. Kepler's laws work very well for one set of astronomical observations but not for a different set. Why? Maybe it's dark matter.

Please digest this explanation thoroughly.

While I did not explicitly explain this earlier, the links posted earlier by others do explain this.

Kepler and his fellows had no idea and no need for "dark matter." I think these classical equations work just fine for the measurements they had. It wasn't until relativity and much more precise measurements were available that small differences could be observed and explained.

Because we need something like "dark matter," means to me that we haven't found the correct theory yet. When we do, it will be what I call "elegant," because we won't need all those ifs, ands, buts, and exceptions to make it work.

The difference between expected and observed angular velocities are not minor differences. Look at just the expected and measured velocities for Messier 33:

Not only is the difference a factor of 2 but instead of decreasing they are increasing.

The formula is E = mc² (m and c lower case). I have never seen c in vector form in this formula, in which event it would be bold-faced.

π (pi) is exact, by definition, in Euclidean geometry. It is other expressions such as 22/7, 3.1416, etc., that are approximations. I don't know how many decimal places are used in MS-Excel, but that too is an approximation.

I do not use spreadsheets to calculate in this case but to identify locations and create 3D models. The 'c' in the equation E = MC² is speed which is miles per hour (etc). This is distance divided by time and I have been told to call this a vector value. If not what is it? E is energy and M is mass, both are single measurable values. C is two measurable values that are related to each other to give the value in the equation.

Pi π is similar in that it is a relationship between two measurable values. The value of Pi is determined by the value of the diameter or circumference of a circle. It is accurate enough to calculate most distances but not the distances in space or three dimensional graphs. The graphs that I use are in fact four dimensional using expansion as time being the fourth dimension that we all live in.

c (not capitalized) is a scalar, not a vector; it has no direction, only magnitude.
It is a speed, not a velocity; sometimes even physicists are careless about this.

然后它仍然是一个标量

حتى في اللغة العربية ، لا تزال السرعة عددية.

c (not capitalized) is a scalar, not a vector; it has no direction, only magnitude.
It is a speed, not a velocity; sometimes even physicists are careless about this.

Please don't be so unethical. When quoting, give attribution. It would also help to be relevant.

Ethical = relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these. Sorry but I cannot agree to be disciplined by theories that do not add up.

What am I to say when my comments are my own thoughts and opinions? When these have been influenced by published opinions of others I refer to the authors such as Einstein, Hawking, Gibbs, Nernst Ohms and Kirchhoff.

I believe my comments are relevant and I do not advise you on your opinion so why are you advising me on mine?

You stole my statement and used it to criticize TINaC's post, to which my statement does not apply.

"... This is distance divided by time and I have been told to call this a vector value. If not what is it? ..."

Speed is not a vector it does not have a direction component. Speed has only a magnitude, making it a scalar.

Baloney to all of that. As I said before, spreadsheets DO NOTHING BUT CALCULATE. The speed of light is the lower-case c. Speed has no particular direction, or it would be called velocity. In either case it has nothing to do with 3D space. We are all getting bored with your lack of comprehension in this thread, and your arrogance.

"... You are getting bored with this discussion but I am not so you are wrong to say 'We are all' and I understand everything you have written here so I do not lack comprehension. ..."

This is a very telling example of the risks your type of thinking bringa about. Your self-validating approach has you totally blindsided to your lack of comprehension, to the point that you boast about 'understanding everything' in yhe same line that you demonstrate you definitely did not understand everything. Quite ironic.

The comment to which you responded did not claim everyone was getting bored with the discussion (as you related you understood the comment).

Go ahead, go back amd reread the comment. It says everyone (this implies everyone but you as you are the offender) is getting bored of your lack of comprehension and your arrogance.

I was thinking that Roger .. . , giving him the benefit of doubt, might, maybe, perhaps be autistic with a very narrow bit of extreme intelligence. But I now have to retreat from that, and instead say that he is very skilled at putting out gibberish that gets the rest of us stirred up.

The very definition of an internet troll.

Please, do not feed the troll.

It exists. They don't know what it is yet. I have long believed it was black holes. Here is some justification:

nasa-scientist-suggests-possible-link-between-primordial-black-holes-and-dark-matter

Are black holes matter? I say no. Once it has been compressed to that level, it no longer has the characteristics of matter.

While this thread has taken some amusing and other tangents, there is one pivotal concept not brought in any of the discussions about the search for dark matter. We can search our space here for things that make up dark matter if dark matter is actual matter. We may have to fabricate a tiny amount of this matter with a lot of energy to detect it. We may have to look locally on Earth or amongst some extraterrestrial trajectories for tiny attractive anomalies. However, if the unknown root of this paradox lies in effects across light years of space (one of the ways for matter is not needed) then we may never know the reason until we find a way to circumvent the speed limit for the universe.

I thought the conclusion to this comment was obvious, so I didn't state it earlier. I now see I was wrong and that it can be misunderstood.

We cannot reach interstellar space, let alone intergalactic space. To identify an interstellar or intergalactic cause to the dark matter phenomena will require some very creative theoretical analysis that can then look for a previously unobserved or unnoticed phenomena. Any theory that claims to answer this phenomena without any method to test the theory is equivalent to claiming invisible fairies are moving these stars. This doesn't mean that the theory cannot be right. But it does mean that the theory cannot be known to be even partially right.

Since we cannot reach out into deep space the theories that answer this paradox by claiming the existence of hidden (dark) matter that maybe producible or tested for does allow us the possibility to see if these ideas are partially right or more. So we try to find this hidden matter.

This topic has now moved in a very positive direction with one contributor saying that the mystery cannot be resolved using conventional wisdom. This opens the way for those that question axioms to propose alternative approaches to the mystery. We now have parallel processing on the internet in which millions of computers are addressing problems that would take powerful computers many years to solve. There are millions of people creating algorithms that are allowing computers to design computers that are more logical than human beings and therefore have no emotional boundaries associated with survival. We know for certain that many of the conventional axioms do not work and so must be discarded, so many of the equations and formulae that have been quoted in this thread can be ignored as they are wrong. This relieves us of the burden of cognisant dissonance of the 'learned ones' who simply do not understand reality.

"... We know for certain that many of the conventional axioms do not work and so must be discarded, so many of the equations and formulae that have been quoted in this thread can be ignored as they are wrong ..."

.

Please provide specifics. Please list the equations used here that are wrong. Please list any more 'conventiomal axioms' which you know to be wrong. If you could detail how you know these are wrong and possibly in what is wrong, that would be much appreciated.

Maybe dark matter is not really matter. I have not written any complicated formulae but have just referred to E =MC² and a few scientists who have written mainstream laws of nature that have led us to where scientific thinking is at present. It is thought that the Higgs Boson was identified over 2 years ago but since then no progress has been made at Cern. There are many string theories and others based on multiple universes etc that are not confirmed by repeated observations. The one fact that has emerged in this discussion and that is that dark matter is required because the calculations do not support any of these theories without this mysterious dark matter. If a theory does not produce repeatedly observable confirmation, it is wrong and must be discarded.

I will not provide specifics as that is a waste of my time and effort and I have already posted my suggestions as a way of moving forward in this matter. If you cannot be bothered to try my suggestions on spreadsheets of your own it is not my problem it is yours.

I carry out experiments in my own laboratory to confirm the advice I give to scientists and technicians all over the world. http://www.pipeline-corrosion-control.com/academic/DynamicElectronics/stage1/technotoy2019.htm

My field of study includes solar radiation, geo magnetics, teluric effects, all forms of electrical current and potentials and all the instruments available to acquire and log data. All of the natural laws that I use can be computer analysed. Does anyone want to help me? We cannot make up dark matter to make the rust go away or make money.

When you write:

"... We know for certain that many of the conventional axioms do not work and so must be discarded, so many of the equations and formulae that have been quoted in this thread can be ignored as they are wrong ..."

...and then respond to a request for specifics (which conventional axioms exactly you are disparaging) by declining to provide specific because it would be a waste of your time, it is difficult for a rational peraon with some understanding of how scientific inquiry works, to take you seriously.

You basically just off handedly climed that foundational relationships were grossly misunderstood and that well tested formulas were actually completely wrong. When asked for details about what would be an incredibly profound and important revelation, you claimed you didn't fancy spending more time than it took to casually state that thw fundamentals were all screwed up.

Now no one who has been paying attention and has been around the block but retains a tenacious grip on reality and reason can take you seriously.

This is another arrogant insult. The subject of this discussion is about dark matter and you say you do not know what it is because all the conventional theories do not add up. I then say that the conventional theories must be wrong because they do not add up and you ignore my suggestion to try my visualisation on spreadsheets and insult me. Thanks a bunch.

You explicitly said formulas in this thread were usless because therly were wrong. I see no formulas about the properties of the posited dark matter.

I do see mention of Kepler's laws concerning orbits These are incredibly useful. Are you suggesting these are wrong to a degree that makes these unusable? If not, to exactly which formulas were you referring?

.

It is amazing that you cannot be bothered at first to clarify and then act insulted when I say it is not clear to what you are referring. Your pedantic tone would probably be easier to overlook if you were a little more clear about what you discuss and if you learned and used the standard definitions of the basic terms you are bandying about.

"You basically just off handedly climed that foundational relationships were grossly misunderstood and that well tested formulas were actually completely wrong. When asked for details about what would be an incredibly profound and important revelation, you claimed you didn't fancy spending more time than it took to casually state that thw fundamentals were all screwed up.

Now no one who has been paying attention and has been around the block but retains a tenacious grip on reality and reason can take you seriously."

'well tested formulae' have failed the tests by requiring you to invent dark matter.

I have already explained a different perspective from which to address this mystery and you have ignored it so it would be a waste of my time to suggest anything else or to repeat your own research into theories and formulae that do not match reality.

I have been round the block and worked in 16 different countries with a vast number of very intelligent people and over the past few days have refreshed my information by viewing dozens of videos by top experts and scientists. None of them have resolved the mystery.

Tell me what is dark matter in reality? It is an excuse for getting the wrong answer!

You seem to be claiming Keplers laws are wrong. Those laws allow exceptional predictability. There is som hole in our understanding concerning the motion of stars about spiral galaxies, but that does not mean Kepler's laws are wrong to a degree that requires scrapping or even modifying.

You seem to be lacking a deductive component in your facsimile of reasoning. When you see something you don't expect that does not mean it is time to pluck out your eyes.

Since you haven't already picked uo on it thus far, let me clarify: I don't find the evidence for dark matter all that convincing. The motions of the planets in the outer portions of the spiral arms would only be weird if a stable orbit were assumed. It might be that spiral galaxies are shaped that way because these galaxies are flinging stars out into space. Not necessarily a comforting thought since out own Milky Way is a spiral galaxy.

Slow your roll. The odd motion of stars in the arms of spiral galaxies is.no reason to throw out highly predictive and ever-useful laws like those Kepler and Newton first detailed.

I have already explained a different perspective from which to address this mystery and you have ignored it

Consider that we do not understand your previous explanation, thus it appears that we ignore it. Please try again, but make it for the "compleat idiot." You seem to emphasize "layered spreadsheets," so please re-explain that so that we idiots can understand how it works.