Everything we think we know about dark matter and dark energy is completely wrong. To see this, we only have to consider the following 16 facts.
1. The energy density of gravitational fields is negative. Gravitational fields become stronger as their sources approach. At the same time as they are amplified, the gravitational fields give off energy to the approaching masses.
2. An absolutely negative energy density is not physically possible. Therefore, there must be a cosmic field that compensates for the negative energy density everywhere.
3. The existence of the cosmic field causes gravity to lead to a reduction in the energy density of the cosmic field.
4. Accelerated masses emit gravitational waves and release energy in the process. We know this from the observation of rotating pulsars that rotate more slowly over time.
5. The emission of gravitational energy also affects accelerated elementary particles. However, because of their charge, they emit much more electromagnetic energy than gravitational energy. The gravitational waves emitted by elementary particles have a microscopic wavelength.
6. In contrast to electromagnetic energy, gravitational energy can escape practically unhindered even from stars.
7. The electromagnetic energy that stars emit to the outside corresponds exactly to the energy released by nuclear fusion collisions.
8. However, there are many more collisions between elementary particles and also with photons than nuclear fusion collisions take place.
9. The Larmor radiation released during these so-called Coulomb collisions is in equilibrium with the thermal energy. All Coulomb collisions are a zero-sum process in terms of energy balance.
10. Although extremely much more electromagnetic energy than gravitational energy is released with each Coulomb collision, only the microscopic gravitational energy leaves the star's interior and in considerable quantities.
11. The gravitational energy density released by stars amplifies the cosmic field, while gravity reduces the cosmic field.
12. The released gravitational radiation therefore has an anti-gravitational effect and thus reduces the gravitational effect of the stellar mass.
13. The anti-gravity effect decays with 1/r² proportional to the surface of the sphere, just like the gravitational effect. It is therefore initially indistinguishable from gravity.
14. However, there is a crucial difference. If the energy density of gravitational radiation has subsided to the background level of the cosmic field, then it cannot fall any further. The background then immediately replaces the further decay. Therefore, the anti-gravitational effect of gravitational radiation stops at this point.
15. When the anti-gravity ends, the full gravitational effect of the entire stellar mass appears. This emergence is wrongly interpreted as an effect of dark matter.
16. The microscopic gravitational radiation emitted by stars that contributes to the cosmic field actually is the dark energy.
The aspects discussed in the 16 points are consistently ignored by standard theory. The microscopic gravitational waves mentioned in point (5) are excluded with an unconvincing argument. It is assumed that with a factor of 1.0E+38, the emission of gravitational radiation is so much lower than the emission of electromagnetic radiation that it can play no role at all.
Unfortunately, the radiation emitted by stars, which corresponds to the fusion power, is assumed to be a reference. What is completely overlooked is that the Coulomb collisions and collisions in which only electrons and photons are involved also lead to gravitational radiation. While the electromagnetic radiation is in energetic equilibrium with the thermal energy, the gravitational radiation escapes completely unhindered.
The fact that the standard theory is so blatantly mistaken is not only embarrassing, it is scandalous. The fact that this also leads to a completely wrong theory about dark matter and an elaborate search for it takes the cake.
May 26, 2025
Dear Mr. Wolfgang Konle
Thank you for sharing your thought-provoking formulation on the Origin of Dark Matter. As a researcher working within the framework of Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM), I found many of your insights both stimulating and closely resonant with ECM principles—particularly your emphasis on gravitational radiation from microphysical processes and its overlooked role in stellar dynamics and cosmic structure.
From the ECM perspective, we strongly align with your core idea that gravitational radiation—especially from accelerated particles in Coulomb interactions—carries significant and often unrecognized energetic contributions. ECM models these effects as real redistributions of potential and kinetic energy, expressed as dynamic changes in apparent mass rather than field-based terms.
Where we differ conceptually is in the assumption of a compensatory cosmic field. ECM internalizes these compensations through potential energy dynamics alone, without invoking an external field. Additionally, ECM formalizes all inverse mass effects and low-energy radiation through dimensionally regularized expressions to ensure energy-mass consistency.
We also appreciate your identification of anti-gravity effects and delayed gravitational emergence, which ECM frames as potential suppression and later restoration of full gravitational mass influence. On this, the observational conclusion is similar, though the mechanics differ.
Your work provides an important perspective, and I trust it invites valuable dialogue across theoretical approaches. I would be pleased to explore further intersections between our models should the opportunity arise.
Yours sincerely,
Soumendra Nath Thakur
May 26, 2025
Dear Mr. Konle,
A detailed response to your insightful proposition has been shared in the following discussion post:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Reconciling_gravitational_radiation_and_dark_sector_effects_with_ecm_principles
I hope it offers a constructive ECM-based perspective on your work.
Kind regards,
Soumendra Nath Thakur
All the members of ResearchGate
There cannot be any Dark Matter or Dark Energy as it has been shown that space is filled up with aether, the electric dipoles in the published paper
in a peer-reviewed journal titled 'Michelson -Morley Experiment A Misconceived and Misinterpreted Experiment' which is available in my profile.
Mohammad Shafiq Khan "There cannot be any Dark Matter or Dark Energy..."
Yes, Dark Matter is a chimera.
But a dark energy background is real, and emissions of stars contribute to this background, as explained in the introduction to this thread.
Whether the discussions above are correct or not, dark matter must exist, as a large amount of currently unobservable mass must surround the easily visible inner portions of galaxies, in order to explain the rotation rates of the nearly invisible outer regions. However, that does not mean that dark matter is some strange kind of stuff that we don't know anything about. It is almost certainly "normal" matter concentrated in objects too faint to observe, or in gases too spread out to observe with current techniques. Of course, such a boring explanation will not win any Nobel Prizes, or provide a reason to publish thousands or tens of thousands of useless papers (though they are "sort of" useful thanks to the "publish or perish" requirements of many institutions), hence the publications of innumerable papers that history is bound to consign to the trash bin once the actual nature of dark matter is finally proven (most likely 50 to 250 years from now).
On the other hand, dark energy is a fraud, invented to explain why the Observable Universe appears ''flat''. The reason for inventing that fraud is that if the total mass to empty space ratio is equal to 100% of a "critical" value, then the Observable Universe IS flat, whereas the actual value of that ratio is only 25 to 30 percent of the critical value, which means that the actual shape of the Universe must be "hyperbolic". The problem involved is that just as the Earth is round, things like the sea appear essentially flat (as the idiots called Flat Earthers believe (or just pretend to believe to irritate sensible people)). In a similar way, even though the Universe as a whole must be "hyperbolic", the Observable Universe is simply too small to tell that though IT looks flat, the actual Universe is NOT flat. That also provides an incentive to write tens of thousands of papers that are nothing but trash; but because even if we could continue to observe the Universe for an eternity, we will never be able to prove that the apparently flat local Universe is too tiny a part of the whole to prove that the Universe as a whole is NOT flat. In fact, as time goes on and the Universe grows, the part that we can see is getting smaller (and therefore looking even flatter), because the expansion of the space we can observe is carrying the outer portions of what we can now see beyond our view; and trillions of years from now, anything now more than two or three hundred million light-years away from us now will be the only part of the Universe that will still be observable (not that it actually WILL be observable, since all stars will be long dead by then, and all creatures extinct.
Courtney Seligman "dark matter must exist"
What we observe are gravitational anomalies. The only thing we need is to explain them.
We can use an explanation based on a mysterious thing like dark matter, or an explanation based on physical facts like the emission of microscopic gravitational waves out of stars.
But before mystery wins, it should be proven that the theoretical facts which provide an alternate explanation cannot be correct.
Do you have such a proof?
If yes, you should be able to disprove at least one of the 16 facts listed in the introduction to this thread.
All members of ResearchGate
Gravitational force has been shown to be due to the recessional acceleration of the star systems and all the anomalies have been explained in the paper titled 'Foundation of Theory of Everything; Non-living Things and Living Things' which is available in my profile on ResearchGate.
Its cool learning about this.. 😁😁
I am a starter , reading these discussions really opens up mind especially " dark matter must exist" ... Thank you for putting up this question.
Mohammad Shafiq Khan "Gravitational force has been shown to be due to the recessional acceleration of the star systems"
Gravitational force is something we are permanently experiencing on earth. There is no need to refer to star systems.
Wolfgang Konle
It has been shown that the gravitational force in a star system is an electromagnetic force which depends on the recessional acceleration of the star system in the published paper in peer-reviewed journal titled 'Foundation of Theory of Everything Non-living Things & Living Things'. Since I write the whole paper in this comment box so do read the paper. You have to bear in mind that there is a standing open challenge to the adopted paradigm of physics.
The thread topic “Origin of Dark Matter” looks as is rather questionable – besides till now only indirectly observed dark matter also the visible “ordinary matter ” for sure exists; and seems before answering what is origin of DM it would be quite naturally to answer what is origin of OM.
Really in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, all fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter” , “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”
– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc. – are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, and so in every case when the mainstream addresses to any really fundamental problem, the result completely inevitably is transcendent/mystic something.
As that are really mainstream theories of Matter/matter creation, where observed now matter was created from for/by some transcendent reason/ way existent “quark-gluon plasma”; in rather numerous theories of DM DM particles are “new physics” particles – “axions”, “dark” photons , neutrinos, etc.
Really all this is/are only examples of non-bounded scientifically rationally humans’ creativity.
The fundamental phenomena/notions above can be, and are, really rigorously defined only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
- and more concretely at application of the definitions in Matter case – in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model that is based on the conception, two main papers are
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391209088_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics
- where really scientific initial Planck scale models of particles, fundamental Nature forces – and so “fields”, etc., and initial cosmological model of Matter creation – see the last link, section “Cosmology ” - are developed.
Matter is based on a simple binary reversible logics, so ultimate base of Matter is (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at l east) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.
Everything in Matter – i.e. “ordinary” and with really large probability existent “dark”, matters are some specific disturbances in the lattice, which are created at transmission to any lattice’s FLE some momentum/energy.
At that it looks as quite scientifically rational to conjecture that the primary particles that were created first were some analogs of DM particles – and seems the gravitationally observed now DM particles are the primary particles, when at interactions and decays ~ 20% of the primary particles the “ordinary” matter– and, at that, no antimatter- was created.
See also rather short https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388922029_The_informational_physical_model_detection_of_dark_matter_particles
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko "“fields”, etc. – are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, and so in every case when the mainstream addresses to any really fundamental problem, the result completely inevitably is transcendent/mystic something."
You seem to be trapped in a transcendent, uncertain, irrational, spiritual world. In this world everything looks transcendent, uncertain, irrational.
But our technical world just works with reliable, certain, rational, and well founded facts.
Yes, you can completely locate your intellectual center outside our technical world. You surely will not be lonely in such a spiritual circle. But commenting items of our technical world out of that spiritual circle is inappropriate.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Electrical Engineering
- Electrodes