"Dark Matter": Blaming Newton

[blü 2]

Cosmologists observing galaxies have been aware of apparent aberrations with standard theories of gravity since at least the 1930s, and in this century exploration of the "dark matter" hypothesis has got most attention in the science press ─ if the explanation is extra mass that we can't see, what could the source of that extra mass be?

But an alternative to dark matter has never been off the table ─ that the problem lies not with unseen forms of matter, but with our standard theories of gravity itself.

Here's a link to a computer simulation of galaxy formation in which no dark matter is assumed but instead a particular variation of how gravity works is applied ─

According to the [hypothesis] the attraction between two masses obeys Newton's laws only up to a certain point. Under very low accelerations, as is the case in galaxies, it becomes considerably stronger. This is why galaxies do not break apart as a result of their rotational speed.​

and

the attraction of a body depends not only on its own mass, but also on whether other objects are in its vicinity.
​

The result of the simulation was encouraging ─

the distribution and velocity of the stars in the computer-generated galaxies follow the same pattern that can be seen in the night sky. "Furthermore, our simulation resulted mostly in the formation of rotating disk galaxies like the Milky Way and almost all other large galaxies we know," says the scientist. "Dark matter simulations, on the other hand, predominantly create galaxies without distinct matter disks -- a discrepancy to the observations that is difficult to explain."​

but not perfect ─

the [...] results [...] do not correspond to reality in all points.
​

So ─

"Our simulation is only a first step," emphasizes Kroupa. For example, the scientists have so far only made very simple assumptions about the original distribution of matter and the conditions in the young universe. "We now have to repeat the calculations and include more complex influencing factors. Then we will see if the MOND theory actually explains reality."​

 

[Heyo]

I was originally a fan of MoND but once we saw the distorted distribution of Dark Matter in a galaxy merger, I switched teams.

 

[blü 2]

I was originally a fan of MoND but once we saw the distorted distribution of Dark Matter in a galaxy merger, I switched teams.

Would it be fair to say we 'inferred the distribution of dark matter though the behavior of the bodies observed'?

I suspect we all love a good mystery.

 

[Heyo]

Would it be fair to say we 'inferred the distribution of dark matter though the behavior of the bodies observed'?

Of course. Whereby the "bodies observed" in this case were galaxies double the distance of those merging. The lensing effect of the foreground galaxies could not be explained by MoND, whereas the assumption of an irregular distribution of Dark Matter could.

 

[ChristineM]

I quite like the mond hypothesis on the cases that it is the simplest explanation. Although dark matter can not, as yet, be directly observed its effects can, we think.

If we knew it all then it wouldn't be fun.

 

[blü 2]

Of course. Whereby the "bodies observed" in this case were galaxies double the distance of those merging. The lensing effect of the foreground galaxies could not be explained by MoND, whereas the assumption of an irregular distribution of Dark Matter could.

Thanks, I didn't know that part of the data. Indeed, both approaches remain on the table.

The next step for the Variable Gravity people will be to modify the assumptions while staying free of dark matter, and see how close they can get. Should be interesting, either way.

 

[Polymath257]

The current status is that MOND cannot explain the lensing effects seen in merging galaxy clusters unless at least *some* dark matter is included.

The prime example is the Bullet cluster. In this, there are lensing effects far past where the matter actually is. It fits a dark matter scenario quite well, but MOND cannot explain it unless it, too, adds dark matter.

So, what we have is either and addition of dark matter alone, OR some version of MOND *and* some dark matter.

Another issue is that applying MOND to the background radiation doesn't fit. There are signals in the CMBR for total 'matter' and for 'baryonic matter'. Those two differ. If MOND is used, the signals areinterpreted slightly differently, but there is still a gap between total matter and baryonic matter. That difference is almost by definition, dark matter.

The case of gravitational lensing of a very distant galaxy past a closer galaxy is also strong evidence against MOND. The locations of the lensing events does NOT match up witht he observed distribution of (baryonic) matter, even if an extra acceleration (which would have to be relevant to light as well) is included.

Finally, MOND is not relativistic. A more fully relativistic model is TeVeS (tensor, vector, scal gravity). At the low speeds of star orbits, they agree, though.

At this point, dark matter seems to be alive and kicking and MOND is disfavored (unless it also has dark matter). While MOND was one model I was really hoping would work (it would have been quite exciting), it simply didn't.

 

[shunyadragon]

Cosmologists observing galaxies have been aware of apparent aberrations with standard theories of gravity since at least the 1930s, and in this century exploration of the "dark matter" hypothesis has got most attention in the science press ─ if the explanation is extra mass that we can't see, what could the source of that extra mass be?

But an alternative to dark matter has never been off the table ─ that the problem lies not with unseen forms of matter, but with our standard theories of gravity itself.

Here's a link to a computer simulation of galaxy formation in which no dark matter is assumed but instead a particular variation of how gravity works is applied ─

According to the [hypothesis] the attraction between two masses obeys Newton's laws only up to a certain point. Under very low accelerations, as is the case in galaxies, it becomes considerably stronger. This is why galaxies do not break apart as a result of their rotational speed.​

and

the attraction of a body depends not only on its own mass, but also on whether other objects are in its vicinity.
​

The result of the simulation was encouraging ─

the distribution and velocity of the stars in the computer-generated galaxies follow the same pattern that can be seen in the night sky. "Furthermore, our simulation resulted mostly in the formation of rotating disk galaxies like the Milky Way and almost all other large galaxies we know," says the scientist. "Dark matter simulations, on the other hand, predominantly create galaxies without distinct matter disks -- a discrepancy to the observations that is difficult to explain."​

but not perfect ─

the [...] results [...] do not correspond to reality in all points.
​

So ─

"Our simulation is only a first step," emphasizes Kroupa. For example, the scientists have so far only made very simple assumptions about the original distribution of matter and the conditions in the young universe. "We now have to repeat the calculations and include more complex influencing factors. Then we will see if the MOND theory actually explains reality."​

Great post!!!

It is true that the existence of Dark Matter is not an observed 'thing.' It descriptive by science of the possibility of 'missing matter,.' which may not be missing.

I do believe that our knowledge of gravity is limited particularity at large distances.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course. Whereby the "bodies observed" in this case were galaxies double the distance of those merging. The lensing effect of the foreground galaxies could not be explained by MoND, whereas the assumption of an irregular distribution of Dark Matter could.

I thought of the same thing.
It's like we share one brain!

 

[Native]

The next step for the Variable Gravity people will be to modify the assumptions while staying free of dark matter, and see how close they can get. Should be interesting, either way.

Excerpt from - Simulating a universe in which Newton's laws are only partially valid

"An important ingredient of this theory is the so-called dark matter. On the one hand, it is said to be responsible for the initial uneven distribution that led to the agglomeration of the gas clouds.
It also explains some puzzling observations. For instance, stars in rotating galaxies often move so fast that they should actually be ejected. It appears that there is an additional source of gravity in the galaxies that prevents this -- a kind of "star putty" that cannot be seen with telescopes: dark matter.

However, there is still no direct proof of its existence. "Perhaps the gravitational forces themselves simply behave differently than previously thought", explains Prof. Dr. Pavel Kroupa".
-----------
Yea, "dark matter" is an indirect "conclusion" of not understood formational processes and motions in galaxies and this conclusion will never confirm anything else but the added conclusion itself.
The gravitational ideas of formation have to be revised and the other fundamental forces have to be included in order to understand the galactic formation and its motions.
Sorry folks! The Electro-Weak and Electro-Strong force and the ordinary Electromagnetic "directional two way force" really governs the galactic formations and motions.

 

[shunyadragon]

Excerpt from - Simulating a universe in which Newton's laws are only partially valid

"An important ingredient of this theory is the so-called dark matter. On the one hand, it is said to be responsible for the initial uneven distribution that led to the agglomeration of the gas clouds.
It also explains some puzzling observations. For instance, stars in rotating galaxies often move so fast that they should actually be ejected. It appears that there is an additional source of gravity in the galaxies that prevents this -- a kind of "star putty" that cannot be seen with telescopes: dark matter.

However, there is still no direct proof of its existence. "Perhaps the gravitational forces themselves simply behave differently than previously thought", explains Prof. Dr. Pavel Kroupa".
-----------
Yea, "dark matter" is an indirect "conclusion" of not understood formational processes and motions in galaxies and this conclusion will never confirm anything else but the added conclusion itself.
The gravitational ideas of formation have to be revised and the other fundamental forces have to be included in order to understand the galactic formation and its motions.
Sorry folks! The Electro-Weak and Electro-Strong force and the ordinary Electromagnetic "directional two way force" really governs the galactic formations and motions.

. . . possibly the 'observed' effects of gravity at greater distances appear differently.

 

[blü 2]

Excerpt from - Simulating a universe in which Newton's laws are only partially valid

"An important ingredient of this theory is the so-called dark matter. On the one hand, it is said to be responsible for the initial uneven distribution that led to the agglomeration of the gas clouds.
It also explains some puzzling observations. For instance, stars in rotating galaxies often move so fast that they should actually be ejected. It appears that there is an additional source of gravity in the galaxies that prevents this -- a kind of "star putty" that cannot be seen with telescopes: dark matter.

However, there is still no direct proof of its existence. "Perhaps the gravitational forces themselves simply behave differently than previously thought", explains Prof. Dr. Pavel Kroupa".
-----------
Yea, "dark matter" is an indirect "conclusion" of not understood formational processes and motions in galaxies and this conclusion will never confirm anything else but the added conclusion itself.

Well, perhaps we shouldn't get ahead of the plot. 'Dark matter' is the name of a problem rather than any particular thing. What is real, and has been real for close to a century, is that galaxies appear not to conform to our classic theories of gravity.

The gravitational ideas of formation have to be revised and the other fundamental forces have to be included in order to understand the galactic formation and its motions.
Sorry folks! The Electro-Weak and Electro-Strong force and the ordinary Electromagnetic "directional two way force" really governs the galactic formations and motions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at this stage the cosmological community, while not wholly ignoring any part of nature, doesn't give any particular priority to the forces you mention. They're the hands-on guys and gals who actually explore the facts, gather the data, and develop and test hypotheses to account for what we know, and they seem to me to be in the best position to attack the problems and hammer out whatever the best solution will prove to be.

Do you have any argument with that?

 

[questfortruth]

The current status is that MOND cannot explain the lensing effects seen in merging galaxy clusters unless at least *some* dark matter is included.

The prime example is the Bullet cluster. In this, there are lensing effects far past where the matter actually is. It fits a dark matter scenario quite well, but MOND cannot explain it unless it, too, adds dark matter.

So, what we have is either and addition of dark matter alone, OR some version of MOND *and* some dark matter.

Another issue is that applying MOND to the background radiation doesn't fit. There are signals in the CMBR for total 'matter' and for 'baryonic matter'. Those two differ. If MOND is used, the signals areinterpreted slightly differently, but there is still a gap between total matter and baryonic matter. That difference is almost by definition, dark matter.

The case of gravitational lensing of a very distant galaxy past a closer galaxy is also strong evidence against MOND. The locations of the lensing events does NOT match up witht he observed distribution of (baryonic) matter, even if an extra acceleration (which would have to be relevant to light as well) is included.

Finally, MOND is not relativistic. A more fully relativistic model is TeVeS (tensor, vector, scal gravity). At the low speeds of star orbits, they agree, though.

At this point, dark matter seems to be alive and kicking and MOND is disfavored (unless it also has dark matter). While MOND was one model I was really hoping would work (it would have been quite exciting), it simply didn't.

Laws of Nature need modifications made simply "by hand", i.e. not from fundamental premises : viXra_revA

 

[Native]

. . . possibly the 'observed' effects of gravity at greater distances appear differently.

The galactic observations certainly appears differently, but it would be a serious case if the gravity models should have different effects in different distances, don´t you think?

Well, perhaps we shouldn't get ahead of the plot. 'Dark matter' is the name of a problem rather than any particular thing. What is real, and has been real for close to a century, is that galaxies appear not to conform to our classic theories of gravity.

Yes that´s the real deal. And as we can´t change the galaxies, the only real scientific option is to change the "gravy models" and believe the observed facts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at this stage the cosmological community, while not wholly ignoring any part of nature, doesn't give any particular priority to the forces you mention.

It´s correct that the cosmological consensus community does´t make those general EM priorities, but the scientific communities STILL works with the Electro-Weak; the Electro-Strong and Electromagnetic forces as separate forces, which I find strange as all atoms have EM qualities and EM spins. It´s all just a question of EM charges and EM ranges.

 

[Native]

The current status is that MOND cannot explain the lensing effects seen in merging galaxy clusters unless at least *some* dark matter is included.

MOND doesn´t have to explain either -

It´s really funny: Astrophysicists use COSMIC LIGHT to confirm their gravitational hindsight biases - and completely forget to include the natural laws of LIGHT REFRACTION.

At this point, dark matter seems to be alive and kicking and MOND is disfavored (unless it also has dark matter). While MOND was one model I was really hoping would work (it would have been quite exciting), it simply didn't.

Yes this Dark Ghost keeps on kicking - as long as the "grave cosmologists" rejects to see the EM light

 

[blü 2]

The galactic observations certainly appears differently, but it would be a serious case if the gravity models should have different effects in different distances, don´t you think?

Yes that´s the real deal. And as we can´t change the galaxies, the only real scientific option is to change the "gravy models" and believe the observed facts.

It´s correct that the cosmological consensus community does´t make those general EM priorities, but the scientific communities STILL works with the Electro-Weak; the Electro-Strong and Electromagnetic forces as separate forces, which I find strange as all atoms have EM qualities and EM spins. It´s all just a question of EM charges and EM ranges.

Why don't they share the priorities you speak of?

 

[Native]

Why don't they share the priorities you speak of?

They really do shares the properties:
Electroweak interaction - Wikipedia
Strong interaction - Wikipedia
Electromagnetism - Wikipedia
-------------------
Electromagnetic spectrum - Wikipedia
Bioelectromagnetics - Wikipedia
Biochemistry - Wikipedia
Chemistry - Wikipedia

But they´re having some troubles imaging and connecting these EM forces to work in all microcosmic and macrocosmic realms. They don´t see the basics of the general EM force working in all gaseous and "metallic" levels, with different charges, polarities and ranges, even in the galactic scales.

In this sense, one REALLY can blame the "gravitational cosmology of Newton" which led to the invention of "dark matter" in the galactic scales. If the cosmologists weren´t that "stuck in gravity" and had considered the EM forces and its "two-way-motions" to work in galaxies, they never had to invent "dark matter" at all.

 

[blü 2]

They really do shares the properties:
Electroweak interaction - Wikipedia
Strong interaction - Wikipedia
Electromagnetism - Wikipedia

But they´re having some troubles imaging and connecting these EM forces to work in all microcosmic and macrocosmic realms. They don´t see the basics of the general EM force working in all gaseous and "metallic" levels, with different charges, polarities and ranges, even in the galactic scales.

In this sense, one REALLY can blame the "gravitational cosmology of Newton" which led to the invention of "dark matter" in the galactic scales. If the cosmologists weren´t that "stuck in gravity" and had considered the EM forces and its "two-way-motions" to work in galaxies, they never had to invent "dark matter" at all.

Thanks for the clarification.

I'll wait patiently while the wise folk sort the matter out. They may be some time about it.

 

[Native]

Thanks for the clarification.
I'll wait patiently while the wise folk sort the matter out. They may be some time about it.

The most funny part is that ancient cultures already had the correct perception and explanation in their thousands of years old Stories of Creation:

LIGHT is what creates everything and LIGTH = Electricity and Magnetism = The EM Force as working in the entire Electromagnetic Spectrum.

 

[blü 2]

The most funny part is that ancient cultures already had the correct perception and explanation in their thousands of years old Stories of Creation:

LIGHT is what creates everything and LIGTH = Electricity and Magnetism = The EM Force as working in the entire Electromagnetic Spectrum.

Except that they had no concept, on the one hand of electricity as such, and on the other of cosmological gravity, cosmological time, a spherical earth, a rotating earth, meteors, orbits, eclipses, satellites, planets, comets, stars, deep space, galaxies and so on.