Dark Matter solved

[questfortruth]

Increasingly, we see phenomena that do not lead to the emergence of new
experimentally confirmed theories or to the update of old theories
acceptable to all scientists; an example is the (yet) futile search for
Quantum Gravity and the Theory of Everything in an attempt to explain the
cosmological singularity and Black Holes. It should be expected then that
some known phenomena are explainable solely by the insertions of virtual
terms. They are mathematical insertions into the equations and laws of nature
which can be made not necessarily from fundamental premises (like the least action
principle) but "by hand'' in order to fit the theory under observation. An example
for such insertions are Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
Therefore, these cannot be directly detected, but it is possible to measure
their effect on nature. As a prime example, the Dark Matter anomaly has acted
on the space-time grid in such an amount that it created an additional force
of attraction of stars to the center of their galaxy. By the way, the proton
radius measured by many experimenters was different
in different years. This riddle did not find yet a solution.
Personally, I would solve this problem with a virtual insertion X
into the radius value, r = R + X.

More in: Mond Solves All Problems, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2004.0613
​

 

[gnostic]

Increasingly, we see phenomena that do not lead to the emergence of new
experimentally confirmed theories or to the update of old theories
acceptable to all scientists; an example is the (yet) futile search for
Quantum Gravity and the Theory of Everything in an attempt to explain the
cosmological singularity and Black Holes. It should be expected then that
some known phenomena are explainable solely by the insertions of virtual
terms. They are mathematical insertions into the equations and laws of nature
which can be made not necessarily from fundamental premises (like the least action
principle) but "by hand'' in order to fit the theory under observation. An example
for such insertions are Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
Therefore, these cannot be directly detected, but it is possible to measure
their effect on nature. As a prime example, the Dark Matter anomaly has acted
on the space-time grid in such an amount that it created an additional force
of attraction of stars to the center of their galaxy. By the way, the proton
radius measured by many experimenters was different
in different years. This riddle did not find yet a solution.
Personally, I would solve this problem with a virtual insertion X
into the radius value, r = R + X.

More in: Mond Solves All Problems, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2004.0613
​

In all of this, you didn’t approach the “Dark Matter” problem concerning MASS.

Where there are gravitational fields and forces, there is mass.

The higher the mass of any object, the stronger gravitational fields and gravitational forces. That’s how the universe work.

But when studying galaxies outside of our own Milky Way, there seem to be more masses than what can be seen. This non-visible matters have effect on galaxies, because the gravitational forces are pushing or pulling galaxies nearby to each other that cannot be accounted for, when the total masses of each galaxies are measured and calculated.

Where are those missing masses come from?

Not once, did your opening post mention anything about masses of matters that cannot be seen and yet have direct effect upon the visible galaxies.

You have to also remember that according General Relativity, mass will have gravitational field can affect the direction of EM radiations, causing the direction of radiation to curve around massive objects, and what we can detect the curvature, is no “gravitational lensing”.

Then there are gravitational lensing where there are curvature that bends light but no apparent visible massive matter that would cause gravitational lensing.

So what cause gravitational lensing where there are no apparent matters visible to instruments astronomers used?

Whenever astronomers and astrophysicists do bring up Dark Matters, they are not trying to explain some magical or supernatural elements, but trying to understand what the matters are that doesn’t react to light and other radiations in normal ways that massive objects usually do.

Mass is important part of any matter, regardless if they are ordinary matters or Dark Matters.

 

[questfortruth]

In all of this, you didn’t approach the “Dark Matter” problem concerning MASS.

Where there are gravitational fields and forces, there is mass.

Not in MOND. But in General Relativity.

 

[Native]

Increasingly, we see phenomena that do not lead to the emergence of new
experimentally confirmed theories or to the update of old theories
acceptable to all scientists; an example is the (yet) futile search for
Quantum Gravity and the Theory of Everything in an attempt to explain the
cosmological singularity and Black Holes. It should be expected then that
some known phenomena are explainable solely by the insertions of virtual
terms. They are mathematical insertions into the equations and laws of nature
which can be made not necessarily from fundamental premises (like the least action
principle) but "by hand'' in order to fit the theory under observation. An example
for such insertions are Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
Therefore, these cannot be directly detected, but it is possible to measure
their effect on nature. As a prime example, the Dark Matter anomaly has acted
on the space-time grid in such an amount that it created an additional force
of attraction of stars to the center of their galaxy. By the way, the proton
radius measured by many experimenters was different
in different years. This riddle did not find yet a solution.
Personally, I would solve this problem with a virtual insertion X
into the radius value, r = R + X.

More in: Mond Solves All Problems, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2004.0613
​

In your linked article you write:
"However, MOND and its generalisations do not adequately account for observed properties of galaxy clusters, and no satisfactory cosmological model has been constructed from the hypothesis".

Can you elaborate a bit more on where MOND isn´t adequate and why?​

 

[questfortruth]

In your linked article you write:
"However, MOND and its generalisations do not adequately account for observed properties of galaxy clusters, and no satisfactory cosmological model has been constructed from the hypothesis".

Can you elaborate a bit more on where MOND isn´t adequate and why?​

It is my opinion, as example consider the "bullet cluster".

 

[Native]

It is my opinion, as example consider the "bullet cluster".

Have you read Moti Milgrom´s reply on this matter? - http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/moti_bullet.html

Besides this, I don´t believe that galaxies can collide in an expanding Universe, so they don´t need to invent a "dark matter" here as well as in the other galaxies they´ve misinterpreted.

 

[questfortruth]

Have you read Moti Milgrom´s reply on this matter? - http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/moti_bullet.html

Obviously the Dr. Milgrom has changed his opinion, because there is no paper:
"The requested URL /~ssm/mond/moti_bullet.html was not found on this server."

 

[Native]

Obviously the Dr. Milgrom has changed his opinion, because there is no paper:
"The requested URL /~ssm/mond/moti_bullet.html was not found on this server."

I don´t know what was wrong - Try again here - The Bullet Cluster (Milgrom)

 

[gnostic]

Not in MOND. But in General Relativity.

I have to admit, I have not delved into the Modified Newtonian Dynamics. So I can’t really comment on what MOND have to say about astrophysics, cosmology and what they have to say on the subject of Dark Matters.

But the facts remained, that we have observatory evidence that mass have gravitational fields and forces, and these can affect the motions of other matters as well EM radiation, eg light or photons.

And it doesn’t matter if these masses come from observable ordinary matters, or matters that cannot be detect (eg Dark Matters) with our current knowledge, but their effects on other objects (eg galaxies) and EM radiations, are real.

 

[questfortruth]

I have to admit, I have not delved into the Modified Newtonian Dynamics. So I can’t really comment on what MOND have to say about astrophysics, cosmology and what they have to say on the subject of Dark Matters.

But the facts remained, that we have observatory evidence that mass have gravitational fields and forces, and these can affect the motions of other matters as well EM radiation, eg light or photons.

And it doesn’t matter if these masses come from observable ordinary matters, or matters that cannot be detect (eg Dark Matters) with our current knowledge, but their effects on other objects (eg galaxies) and EM radiations, are real.

My version of MOND includes General Relativity as special case. Thus, I have no problem with General Relativity effects. I go beyond General Relativity.

 

[Native]

It´s embarrassing . . .

From - https://history.nasa.gov/SP-466/ch22.htm

"Most of the mass in the universe is missing. Or is it merely hidden in some exotic, as yet undetectable form? No one is sure which. One thing is sure, though.

The problem of the missing mass has gotten to the point where it is more than just a problem. It is an embarrassment, an obstacle to understanding such things as the structure of galaxies, the evolution of clusters of galaxies, and the ultimate fate of the universe.

This is about the situation astrophysicists find themselves in today. Not in trying to understand the motion of planets around the Sun - the theory works fine there - but in trying to understand the motions of stars and gas in the outer regions of galaxies, or of galaxies and gas in clusters of galaxies".
--------------
Well, the scientists just should have taken the Galactic Rotation Curve seriously instead of inserting the "dark matter ghost".

There is NO missing mass at all. What´s missing is that astrophysicists and cosmologists involve the much stronger EM force and qualities when interpreting motion of matters in cosmos.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I always love these threads on religious forums in the corners of the interwebs, where people come to claim that they were able to solve that which apparantly all the actually working expert professionals were unable to solve....

If this is true and you "solved" it, ... what are you doing communicating your eureka moment on a religious forum? Why aren't you busy sharing your findings with the actual scientific community and turning entire scientific fields upside down for which you'll likely get a Nobel?


I know why, off course.

 

[gnostic]

My version of MOND includes General Relativity as special case. Thus, I have no problem with General Relativity effects. I go beyond General Relativity.

Since, I don’t know much at all about MOND, so I read just the basics of what it is about.

I can understand that some people agree and accept a new alternative hypotheses, but the gist of it, it is still a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a PROPOSED model that comprised of explanation and predictions, that have yet to be tested or currently undergoing testing.

They (hypotheses) are not tested and accepted as “Scientific Theory”, until they meet all 3 basic requirements:

1. Being “Falsifiable” and testable.
2. Being rigorously tested and analyzed in the TESTING stage of the Scientific Method.
3. And the hypothesis along with all the evidence and data (that have been accumulated from scientific method’s test results) have been reviewed, analyzed and accepted by independent scientists, hence Peer Review.

Mordehai Milgrom‘s hypothesis, MOND, is still at infancy stage - stage 1, which the Falsifiability stage.

He had not presented evidence that debunked Dark Matters, which is the core theory of his hypothesis, because his alternative model don’t have the evidence required to go beyond stage 1.

Until his MOND have been rigorously tested and independently reviewed, it isn’t scientific theory. It is merely a hypothesis, a proposal, nothing more, nothing less.

You can accept MOND all you like, but I would rather wait until it has been tested, verified and validated.

I am not saying MOND is wrong; no, I am saying it rather premature to say it is right, when we don’t have the evidence and data that verify or refute the MOND hypothesis.

 

[questfortruth]

I know why, off course.

Educate me then, if you know why.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Educate me then, if you know why.

Because your "solutions" don't hold up when you present them to the actual scientific community.

If they did, we wouldn't be reading about this on some religious forum. Instead, we'ld read about it in big letters on the frontpage of newspapers. Well... maybe on page 3 these days, with all that Corona business.

Because that's how huge this would be.
But since only you seem impressed enough to come here and create a thread about it, I think it's safe to say that you likely didn't solve the dark matter thingy and that you must be mistaken somewhere. Or everywhere.

 

[Native]

I always love these threads on religious forums in the corners of the interwebs, where people come to claim that they were able to solve that which apparantly all the actually working expert professionals were unable to solve....

If this is true and you "solved" it, ... what are you doing communicating your eureka moment on a religious forum? Why aren't you busy sharing your findings with the actual scientific community and turning entire scientific fields upside down for which you'll likely get a Nobel?

I know why, off course.

I don´t think you should be that cocky as long as modern cosmology don´t agree in a Theory of Everything and have to use "dark ghostly matters" in order to patch their insufficient and speculative ideas.

BTW: Have you yourself tried to post an article which content doesn´t agree with consensus cosmology? You´ll soon be forced to use either YouTube or vixra.com

 

[questfortruth]

you must be mistaken somewhere. Or everywhere.

The paper is almost math-less, so it is easy for you to find a mistake.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don´t think you should be that cocky as long as modern cosmology don´t agree in a Theory of Everything and have to use "dark ghostly matters" in order to patch their insufficient and speculative ideas.

The difference is that working cosmologists are proclaiming / pretending to have "solved" these problems, and actually are quite honest and open about the fact that really, they don't have a clue.

How is that cocky?
I'ld say to pretend to have solved these problems and coming to brag about it on some insignificant forum, instead of actually trying to convince the scientific community, is what is cocky.

BTW: Have you yourself tried to post an article which content doesn´t agree with consensus cosmology? You´ll soon be forced to use either YouTube or vixra.com

Here come the conspiracy theories....

Maybe, just maybe, if you can't get your papers past review for publication, the problem is the paper and not some grand conspiracy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The paper is almost math-less, so it is easy for you to find a mistake.

I'm not qualified to evaluate things concerning these subjects. Not even by a long shot.

 

[Native]

Maybe, just maybe, if you can't get your papers past review for publication, the problem is the paper and not some grand conspiracy.

Did you even read and considered the contents on link from Questfortruth?

The difference is that working cosmologists are proclaiming / pretending to have "solved" these problems, and actually are quite honest and open about the fact that really, they don't have a clue.

In the very best of cases, yes. But the matter of "dark this and that" they´ve cemented this for decades and decades as "the very truth and nothing but the truth"-attitude.

And EXCACTLY THIS is why you act as a cocky debater. You just believe in the concensus dogmatism and when other alternatives are mentioned, I suspect you even don´t read the contents.

Here come the conspiracy theories....

Well here you admit that you never have had any thoughts outsides the squared box and tried to post something alternative in peer review fora.

It´s NOT a conspiracy matter at all. It´s a matter of colleges judging if the consensus is kept in an article and nothing else.