Dear Manuel Urueña Palomo,

I would like to say that "dark matter" does not exist. But then I will have to tell what causes the apparent anomalous "attraction" of rotating bright bodies. From my point of view, this rotation is caused by the rotation of space itself, about the structure and properties of which we know so little. Nevertheless, it can be so if the bodies are "frozen" into such a space and there is no "other" space around. It's the same as if we are in a spaceship on orbit and do not feel the Earth's gravity. Because the ship and we fall onto it all the time, but we just can’t fall. It is significant that the laboratory model of a rotating dish with shallow water predicts the structure of rotating galaxies quite well:

Fridman A M "Prediction and discovery of new structures in spiral galaxies" Phys. Usp. 50 115–139 (2007).

With best regards, Dulin Mikhail.

I did not know that Fridman was still alive in 2007...I guess he was the one of the inventor of the FLWR model...

Dear Stefano Quattrini.

This is not the Friedman who created the first model of the non-stationary Universe. He was Alexander Alexandrovich, he died in 1925 at the age of 37. The author of the work at the link - Alexei Maksimovich, Doctor of Science, Professor, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, died in 2010 at the age of 70.

“…Newtonian gravity works in the range of low gravitational field intensity. For strong gravitational field intensities, General Relativity is a better approximation….”

- that is quite incorrect claim. Both, Newton gravity and General Relativity really work only “in the range of low gravitational field intensity”; while in strong gravity fields both theories aren’t valid.

The Newton gravity isn’t valid since doesn’t take into account changes of inertial masses because of essential Lorentz factors of moving bodies; and, besides, other possible physical effects, first of all of practically for sure existent gravimagnetic force action; and changing of gravitational and inertial masses because of gravitational coupling.

The GR is evidently wrong since in the GR the energy conservation law really is violated, what is inessential in weak fields, but in extremely large fields that is quite evident, say, on the black holes “event horizons” surfaces the speed of falling body is equal to the speed of light, and so the body has infinite energy, while really that fundamentally never can be in Matter.

What is the really fundamentally nothing else that some fundamental Nature “Gravity” force see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces where, including, relating to

“….There are macroscopic phenomena that cannot be explained without quantum mechanics, such as non-collapsing neutron stars due to degenerancy pressure. Maybe dark matter is another macroscopic phenoma due to quantum gravity….”

- though the Gravity model above is now only initial one, where only most of basic points in the Gravity force are explained or essentially clarified, and now it is, first of all, the base at developing of full theory,

- but yet now it is clear that Gravity is so extremely weak Force, that the observed well probably real “dark matter” structures [say, galaxies’ haloes] have no any relation to the fact that in some cases, as that fundamentally obligatorily happens at acting of other, i.e. Electric, Strong, and Weak, Forces, some gravitationally coupled systems can compose some quantum structures - as that are neutron stars.

For example it looks as rather possible that the black holes’ [the black holes aren’t, of course, some “holes in spacetime”, more see section “Cosmology” [and the first link, of course,] in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics ] really existent central compact and extremely dense objects really are some quantum systems.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko It's a matter of what you call strong and low gravitational field intensity. I called low field the solar system, while strong field around black holes. NG works in low fields but not in strong fields, and GR in both. I ask if maybe it doesnt work either in very low fields.

The speed of falling massive bodies to black holes at event horizons is not the speed of light. They are not moving faster than the speed of light in their local spacetime, so no infinite energies.

Manuel Urueña Palomo

“…It's a matter of what you call strong and low gravitational field intensity. I called low field the solar system, while strong field around black holes. NG works in low fields but not in strong fields, and GR in both. I ask if maybe it doesnt work either in very low fields…”

- again – see the yesterday SS post above – really the both, NG and GR work only in weak gravitational fields, including “very low” fields, though the last is really inessential, why? - more see the SS post,

- including that

“….The speed of falling massive bodies to black holes at event horizons is not the speed of light. They are not moving faster than the speed of light in their local spacetime, so no infinite energies. The speed of falling massive bodies to black holes at event horizons is not the speed of light.….”

- is rather questionable claim. The black hole event horizon surface is determined by the condition that the escape velocity from this surface is equal to the speed of light, so the radius of the surface in GR is Schwarzschild radius, in NG this radius is two times lesser. Correspondingly if a body falls into this surface it has its speed be equal to the speed of light, if a body has non-zero rest mass, its energy is infinite.

What is physical nonsense since evidently violates the energy conservation law, from which it follows that both, NG and GR really are fundamentally non-applicable in extreme gravitational fields;

- and, besides, in the GR a black hole’s event horizon surface is the surface of real “hole in Matter’s spacetime”, what is fundamentally wrong, since fundamentally nothing in Matter can “pierce” the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (utmost universal) [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct).

So the “GR black holes” [and widely known in mainstream physics a number of other “holes”] really are nothing else than some mathematical constructions, application of which in physics correspondingly results only in some mystic fundamentally really non-existent fantastic “physical objects, effects”, etc..

And that

“…. They are not moving faster than the speed of light in their local spacetime, so no infinite energies.…..”

- looks as also rather questionable claim – in this case there cannot be some body’s motion faster than the speed of light – since yet the speed of light is unphysical; and – in the GR there is no “black hole local spacetime”, in the GR yet on the event horizon surface the “spacetime curvature” is infinite, and so the GR principally doesn’t know what is “local spacetime” inside the “spacetime hole”.

Again – what is realty physical effect “Gravity” and what is really scientific initial model of the fundamental Nature “Gravity” force, which in weak fields is analog of Newton gravity, and at least in first approximation clarifies what happens in any, including extreme, fields, is the SS&VT 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces

- where, including, it is rigorously scientifically shown that these two Forces act by one scheme; moreover, it turns out to be that this scheme is universal in Matter and is used also at least when Nuclear Force that holds nucleons together in nuclei acts, see 2023 model of this Force in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko In the GR on the event horizon surface the “spacetime curvature” is not infinite. It in fact can be very small for a big and low density black hole.

“…In the GR on the event horizon surface the “spacetime curvature” is not infinite. It in fact can be very small for a big and low density black hole.….”

- solutions of the GR equations on the event horizon surface are singular independently on what, large or small, a black hole is, though yeah – see section “Cosmology” in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics - that looks as rather strange just when SMBH are considered, when on the event horizon really binding – and so escaping - energy in Newton gravity is quite tolerant.

However the non-adequacy of the GR to the reality appears well earlier, when, say, a having small mass m body falls in large mass M body gravity field, and obtains in the GR correspondingly large kinetic energy, which is, of course, a part of whole the m body’s energy;

- while it is evident – if two bodies were on infinite distance, the whole energy of this system is E0=Mc2+m0c2, and at any interactions of bodies, including when m falls toward M, in the system the whole energy in system must always be equal to E0; or even lesser, if the energy dissipates by some way.

Correspondingly really the falling m body doesn’t obtain some energy from Gravity field, on the contrary - really it spends its own energy to be accelerated: really Gravity field is only “some medium”, that causes the fall, while the falling moves like, say, a human swims in medium “water” spending his energy.

More in detail, again, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces

Besides note, that in the last SS post above the reference to Nuclear Force model was damaged, now it is corrected.

Cheers

Dear Manuel Uruena Palomo,

Thank you for posting such an interesting question for the discussion. I am also sure that in the range of ultraweak gravitation both Einstein and Newton does not work properly. Indeed, I think that dark matter non-existing as a matter but rather the visible matter induces correction to the overall properties of gravity. Here is my books on this topic:

(3) The quest for new physics An experimentalist approach Vol.2 | Dmitriy Tipikin - Academia.edu

https://www.academia.edu/92307473/The_quest_for_new_physics_An_experimentalist_approach_Vol_2

(PDF) The quest for new physics (researchgate.net)

Article The quest for new physics

In short, I have three mutually exclusive ideas:

1.Dark matter is the polarization of quantum vacuum by the present masses

2.The space time itself is distorted by the present masses well above the Schwarzschild radius (at very high distances)

3.Any particle even photon has an inherent and quantized gravitational dipole (see vol.2 for more details). Those dipoles are enhancing the gravity, not weakening like in the case of electrostatics because the similar charges in gravity attract, not repel.

However, despite the last idea is somehow pertain to "quantum" and gravity, it is nothing to do with quantum gravity as majority of scientists understand it (quantum version of GR). My understanding of the development of physics - something very unusual and completely orthogonal to all we know should be discovered in order to explain this phenomenon (dark matter). The situation is similar to 150 years ago, when all the fine mathematics was not able to predict the phenomenon of quantization of energy of light - so unusual was that discovery.

Yours sincerely,

Dmitriy Tipikin

There is NOTHING out there named "dark matter" ................

The last really scientific answer to the thread question is given in the SS posts on page 1. Some full stop trash of a special RG spammer above on this page means nothing besides that he makes his job – stop as that is possible readers from reading posts, where really scientific thoughts, which can be used by some “silent RG readers” in their publications; the RG is used by this way also,

- in this case shifting the scientific posts from visible page, and placing in the RG rather useful threads’ “Scientific topics” sections [say, here as https://www.researchgate.net/topic/Gravitational-Field, etc.], where last posts in a thread are indicated, corresponding trash.

More see the SS posts on page 1 and links in the posts.

Cheers