Dark Matter Not Required

And as for the expanding of space time?The big bang is not over yet.It started slowly,like blowing up a balloon,the "Space-time membrane" is thicker when it is small,but as it expands, the membrane becomes thinner and the expansion requires less "pressure" therefor the rate of expansion is increasing.

If space timer can be stretched,it surely can be "thinned".

What ever caused the initial bang is still happening.

Constructive comment always welcome.

I tried to add this to my first posting but was stopped by a premature time-out.This happens a lot.

You are taking the "expanding balloon" or "rubber sheet" model of the big bang far too literally. This model is only intended to provide an analogy how things can move away from each other without moving through space.

http://www.felderbooks.com/papers/cosmo.html

There is still debate whether the universe ever started from a singularity or if something always existed and the inflationary period came from the super hot very dense thing that previously existed. In other words, the reverse time extrapolation to a singularity is not valid or accurate for the laws of Physics presently observed do not apply to things at that time.

As Gary Felder also points out, the future and whether the universe is finite or not is also up for debate.

I was also using it as an analogy to try to express an idea in terms that can be visually easily.

Try this analogy:

Gravity is the effect of acceleration in all directions simultaneously.

It is hard to imagine this I know, but consider that all of what we call spacetime is a bubble that is rising in a body of water,and the bubble is expanding as it rises,but it is also accelerating as it rises.
It is accelerating at 1 G. in all directions (I told you it would be hard to imagine).
It is impossible to distinguish between gravity and acceleration at the same speed as gravity.
The "dent"in spacetime is caused by the acceleration force on matter,just like in an elevator.If you were on a trampoline in an elevator,and it was accelerating at 1G you would see the same deformation in the fabric.
This is over simplification to imagine this in 3 dimensions,but many 4 dimensional effects are illustrate this way.

Explosions may have a distinct fingerprint, but time and the noise floor will obscure it.

The finger print of the big bang is the CMB.

That finger print has only a few and cloudy comparison points. Two(maybe more) other possibilities need to be checked. Some believe the the CMB is the fingerprint to the decay of gravity. This is based on another explanation of gravity based on the asymmetry of angular charge momentum. This comes from a fundamental charge property, handedness. And that gravity is NOT a fundamental property, it only appears with a dipole. It's a dipole property, with only one pole. Giving only an attractive potential. Almost all mass is right handed for some reason. Handedness is a really big deal, but slightly studied.

The other explanation for the CMB is the re-combination of all the eons of solar wind charge particles, into dipoles(H1), deep in space.

We have never detected recombination of the wind. That we know of. Recombination of those winds might be affected by gamma bursts. Some external force is needed to change the velocity and energy levels of the wind particles, in order for recombination to occur, with our present understanding.

No. Dipole means a pair of poles. Having one pole is a monopole.

Do you also play pigeon chess?

Do you know where space time comes from? It comes from local time. Do you know where local time comes from? Local time is the only way, our educated physicists(or anybody else) can explain our light measurements.

ALL of our science is now based on this PHONY explanation of light. This is because NO ONE could explain light measurements with classical mechanical physics. AND THAT is because they were using MAXWELL equations. BUT Maxwell's equations only described absorption, not emission. Light, EM radiation, is VERY asymmetric. It has a zero duration of emission, but it has 2 times the duration of the propagation duration, upon absorption. This is because absorption has reactance to the angular conversion. A bounce duration equal to the stimuli duration, which is 1/2 period. A full period response. WITH frequency. Because it's now angular.

But light does have a mechanical dynamic, and it requires that TIME is a universal singularity. Time never changes. The present second of time here, is the same second everywhere.

EM radiation has NO duration of emission. And EM emission is intermittent. It's discreet. It's the only thing Einstein got right. It does NOT have an alternating frequency, it doesn't have frequency at all. It has duty cycle. It has no relation to a media wave.

An antenna, converts a linear duration of electrical disturbance, into a angular duration of electrical disturbance. And it converts an angular duration of disturbance, into a linear duration of electrical disturbance. Both durations are 1/2 period. A 1/2 period of angular rotation is 1/2 turn. Upon absorption the 1/2 turn of inducement, causes a 1/2 turn of reaction(or resetting). This leaves a full turn, a full sine, in which Maxwell saw and thought the propagation was a full wave too. But the last half of absorption is reactance, not inducement.

Light does not alternate, it strobes. With a 50% duty cycle, if there is no relative velocity. If the emitter changes distance from absorber, the phase of the duty cycle will change in proportion to the distance change.

IF the absorber changes distance from emitter, the phase and the duty cycle changes. These properties allow us to independently measure the emitter velocity AND measure the absorber velocity. A great tool for astronomers, who know nothing about this.

Time is a property of motion, not space. It unifies all motion. It sequences events. It is constant.

The decay of gravity is much more likely the cause of universe expansion. The red shifts are cause by high g long ago in the past. The universe is expanding at a very low rate now, and for all the future.

That's my take on it, and I have experiments for any to see the intermittence of light for themselves.

An audio speaker has an equal emission duration, equal to the propagation duration and equal to the absorption duration. All have the same periods.

Light has a zero emission duration, 1/2 period propagation duration, AND a full period(2X propagation duration) of absorption duration. That's 0, 1/2 and 1.

Can you dig it? It's always physical mechanics. No magic, no probability, no randomness. Same time everywhere.

And as far as gravity is concerned, space-time gives you elliptical orbits, physical mechanics gives you helical orbits. A one turn helical orbit, only has the APPEARANCE of an elliptic. Like the appearance of frequency at the absorber.

Modern science WILL BE the most ignorant thing you'll ever study.

My comments are honest and not meant to be insulting to anyone, but when does this idiocy stop?

Can you cite anything that reflects these ideas? I doubt you can.

I find it difficult to follow any thought you've presented. An edited publication of these ideas might make it easier for me to understand what you are proposing.

Go easy on somebody naive, but does dark matter even exist ? Put another way, is it just a numerical juggle to make the math add up. If it's just a concept to make things add up, how do we know we are not chasing a unicorn ?

I'll just shut up and read further comments (not that I'm likely to understand), but my question is about dark matter being some sort of 'thing' that might one day be described as a whole. What is called dark matter could possibly be the sum of several things not concieved of ? Way out of my depth, so I'll just read and try comprehend.

They call it dark matter because it warps spacetime,as if it was matter,but it may be something else,like I said,it may be the result of a dimple in the universe that was there from birth.Of course,gas clouds would accumulate there eventually becoming dense enough to collapse and eventually form stars and become the seeds of galaxies,held together within the dimple.

I greatly recommend the link I provided earlier. It explains many parts of the big bang, including why the name is very misleading. It really does not address dark matter.

As for dark matter itself, we don't know enough about it to say how much exists and if it exists what is most of it made of. It is a place holder concept to explain the physics of some observations. A small part of dark matter is well known for all of the Earth is considered to be dark matter. HTRN has touched upon several of the proposed theories for explaining the observations (particularly the observations on how galaxies don't toss stars out from a lack of centripetal force) without hidden matter providing an additional gravitational tug.

A common difficulty of the dark matter conundrum is that it apparently can only be indirectly observed. This is the spooky aspect of the problem. This makes it very difficult to qualify, or quantify.

Here's an idea:

Maybe our 3-dimensional universe is embedded in a higher-dimensional "hypervolume" (along with other 3-dimensional universes), similar to the way a 2-dimensional tabletop is embedded in a 3-dimensional room.

If gravity can act through this higher dimensional space, perhaps dark matter is just the attraction of normal matter in a nearby universe attracting matter in our universe, just as a magnet taped to the bottom of the table would attract a steel marble on the tabletop.

"One (possible) prediction of string theory is that our universe is a “brane“, a “sheet” of spacetime floating about in a higher dimensional space called the “bulk”. Other branes (other universes) might be floating around nearby, almost overlapping our universe, some small distance away. All of the particles native to a brane are stuck to it, but the gravity they produce might not be. So perhaps what we perceive as dark matter is really just the gravitation from matter in another nearby universe. That would explain why we don’t see it and why it doesn’t bump into things."

https://www.askamathematician.com/2018/09/q-could-dark-matter-actually-be-the-gravitational-shadow-of-parallel-universes/

If that's the case then manipulating mass in other universes might provide the key to creating very high concentrations of gravitational centres; which in turn allow space travel in our universe with accelerations far greater than g.

I know this may sound far fetched,impossible,implausible and downright idiotic,but perhaps dark matter and energy are like the king's clothes,used to generate more funding for ever more and more research?

We all know historically how ethical and honest humans are when it comes to power and money.

No matter what the theory,it will need more study to prove or disprove it,all the way down to the Muons and Branes of the quantum universe and beyond.

( My fart-felt apologies in advance to anyone that takes offense to my opinion.)

The idea that some "dimples" in space-time is the primary cause and the formation of the galaxies the effect, seems really bright indeed. This is thinking out of the box!

What nags me though is that this explanation just sweeps the dust under the carpet. We need to somehow explain why these "dimples" have not been smoothed out soon after the Big Bang. What makes them persistent?

Moreover, we are already in one of those "dimples", right? And I suppose that this is not uniform in measure (whatever this means) across our galaxy, so we should expect to find some irregularities when studying space-time in a direction or another.

IMHO:

The "dimples" formed the seed from which galaxies eventually grew and formed. Normal matter and it's mutual attraction still holds true,but the original accumulation began in these "dimples",and remains,even as the universe expands.It is like a birthmark of the universe and it will endure.

There may be dimensions outside of our known "universe" that affect our universe,and the effects could be mutual.

Like bubbles of foam that are deformed when they touch each other.

There have been Cephid stars that seem to be older than the predicted age of the universe.

Astronomers have attempted to explain this by various methods to fit their current model of the universe.

Whether this will hold up only time will tell.

It is good to question new information,but it is hard to set aside the ego equity of established ideas:The pyramids for instance,but I won't go into that unless asked.

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."A.E.

I had a teacher who used to say "We have as much chance of understanding the universe as a foot and mouth disease germ, buried 6 inches in the mud under a gate, stands of understanding the agricultural system in the UK".

Not quite as poetic as, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (Hamlet), but a good image nevertheless.

The story would have a better ending if the story teller had, in the end, eaten the ant!

This does sound like a plausible framework for a possible theory, it's the second step of construction that seems rather difficult...

The twisting of space-time becomes hard to visualize as 3-D perceived reality becomes a blur that seems to just dematerialize as it fades into perhaps another dimension, or compressed into an unrecognizable force that can't be seen directly...

We do know that matter attracts matter, but seems to start this process at random, this continues throughout time until certain mass-based changes take place...it's all about the mass.... and the velocity....

There is ongoing research into the idea that dark matter doesn't exist.

Dark Matter?