The dark matter is an example of how science ever worked, but in the last 100 - 200 years even more then before. The wildest speculations are cited as science and in a short time people start to speak about such entities as their existence has been proven before. I prefer to look at the dark matter as an act of acceptance that we just haven't understood enough about matter so far. Nothing more. We speak about the universal gravitational attraction but in fact we have no idea about how universal it is. Maybe it works as known just at given scales and completely different at other scales. I don't want to mix the dark energy in this discussion, but just to remark that this concept is even more speculative than the dark matter...

Hans,

“…The gravitation leads to aggregations of gravitational matter as fixed stars, planets, galaxies etc. Therefore "dark matter" cannot exist for the eternity in a finely distributed form somewhere in the universe…” 

-   that isn’t so relating to rather possibly existent “dark matter”. The gravitation doesn’t lead to aggregations of masses, just therefore in Sun’s system so many bodies, including planets, move billions of years without some aggregations. Aggregations appear when some masses interact by using other forces, first of all EM – interactions between gases molecules, adhesion, etc. And only after the size of some body   becomes be large so that a some non-zero number of distributed in space other bodies have their impact parameters lesser then the sizes of the bodies and they contact at a meeting, a body with greater mass appears.

At that practically obligatory condition – speeds of parts of the new aggregation must be small enough for it to be stable; i.e. must be inelastic collisions with releasing outside the aggregation some energy.

Dark matter particles interact with usual matter only by gravity, thus even at a small temperatures cross sections of possible interactions are very small, and these particles move through material objects practically without energy losses.

Thus every such particles move in gravity systems “as a planets”, across own orbits; forming some halos around the systems.

- see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics

Cheers

Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics

In the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory, Dark Matter is just antimatter traveling in a Lagging Universe.

Being in another hypersphere, they can occupy the same volume in the 3D space and be separated by less than a femtometers along the radial direction.  Of course, this also means that collisions cannot occur and that they will only respond to Gravitation.  Since they are in a lagging hypersphere, one cannot shed light onto them and see the reflected light (remember we are also traveling at the speed of light)..

HU proposed the Universe to be in a ligthspeed expanding hypersphere hypersurface, so in HU the Universe has four non-compact spatial dimensions.

Since they are in different Universe, they cannot form chemical bonds or annihilate each other.  HU proposed that under conditions of large masses (like in the case where a Matter and an antimatter star are overlapping in 3D, tunneling followed by annihilation might occur.  This is used to explain Gamma Ray Bursts.

HU corrects Newton's Gravitational Law, Gauss' Electrostatic Law, Biot-Savart Law, Maxwell's Equation in many ways. One of them is by showing that Field Intensity decays with the inverse of the difference in Cosmological Time squared as opposed to distance squared.  It also shows that ANCIENT PHOTONS slow down as they approach us.

The theory is shown here:

https://issuu.com/marcopereira11/docs/ibegtodiffer

Thanks for your answers. To be honest I had expected such answers.

"The gravitation doesn’t lead to aggregations of masses, just therefore in Sun’s system so many bodies, including planets, move billions of years without some aggregations."

I'm afraid I couldn't go along with that. This bodies are already aggregated matter. In Sun's system the aggregation is essentially completed but sometimes still happen spectacular eavents - Shoemaker-Levy Juli 1994. And there is a continuous fall out of matter on earth and other celestical bodies.

We have to distinguish: First it happens an "initial aggregation". Diffusely distributed matter aggregates to stars and star systems. This is observable in astronomy. The cause can only be the gravitation. Or exists there any additional force? Aggregated matter hold together also by van-der-Waals-forces and chemical bonds. Different forces have different reach. You can clearly see a "ranking of forces".

"In the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory, Dark Matter is just antimatter traveling in a Lagging Universe."

Theories are attmpts on a certain stage of knowlwdge to declare the reality.

My Regards! Hans

Hans,

“…Diffusely distributed matter aggregates to stars and star systems. … The cause can only be the gravitation….”

Again, not “only be gravitation”, the “only gravitation” doesn’t lead to automatic [“dense”] aggregation – it can only form some gravitationally linked systems of mass if masses have speeds lesser then “second cosmic speed” for the system; bodies with greater speed leave the system, those with lesser then “first cosmic speed” aggregate complexes with other bodies – practically at once after the system appeared. Further to aggregate additional bodies is necessary for these bodies inelastically interact by other forces – in fact only by EM, or “by van-der-Waals-forces and chemical bonds” at contacts so that bodies relative speed again becomes be lesser then the first cosmic speed.

Dark matter particles gravity force is so small, that even at small temperatures their speeds relatively to atoms [more correct – particles of] of “usual matter” are more then the corresponding “second cosmic speeds” and they don’t interact with the matter inelastically. That is something like neutrino interactions, but with important difference – most of neutrino move with practically speed of light and so don’t interact gravitationally at all, but dark matter particles rather probably are cold and so many of them have, say, in Sun system, speeds lesser then this system second cosmic speed; so in Sun system rather probably besides planets, comets, etc., etc., etc. there are possibly a large number (having very small sum mass, so Newton law works practically without observable deviations) of dark matter particles that rotate around Sun – and inside Sun – analogously to usual planets, but not in a one plain, though.

Cheers

@Hans-G Hildebrandt

Any theory is an attempt to recount the history associated with a process.  The more fundamental the theory is the broader its reach. The Antimatter Lagging Universe fits quite well with the existence of Gamma Ray Bursts for which current Science has not explanation.

It also fits with BAO observations because it provides a candidate for Dark Matter - one that can occupy the same region of space as matter, have Gravitational attraction to it while presenting no electrostatic interaction.  It also fits with Gravitational Lensing observed during galactic collisions.  HU also provides a gyrogravitation potential capable of explaining Spiral Galaxy co-rotation.

My goal, when presenting my response (in a positivistic manner) is to elicit readership and specific criticism. 

Since it didn't elicit either on you, my conclusion is that the goal of your question was personal - and not scientific.

All theories present a 'story', rules that 'fit' reality. Everything is qualified since the stories are subcontexts.  Normally they do not declare themselves reality... :) Any scientist knows that a theory encompasses what we know... anything that we don't know may or may not fit into the theory....I include myself in that group.

The dark matter is an example of how science ever worked, but in the last 100 - 200 years even more then before. The wildest speculations are cited as science and in a short time people start to speak about such entities as their existence has been proven before. I prefer to look at the dark matter as an act of acceptance that we just haven't understood enough about matter so far. Nothing more. We speak about the universal gravitational attraction but in fact we have no idea about how universal it is. Maybe it works as known just at given scales and completely different at other scales. I don't want to mix the dark energy in this discussion, but just to remark that this concept is even more speculative than the dark matter...

I think the problem is that we see dark matter as something different from normal matter and it could be that dark matter is just normal matter that has no energy content.  This means that we do not see it.  It would emit no signature that we would see other than it would still have a gravitational attraction.

This type of explanation would change the look for dark matter but it seem that not many think this way.

Dear George!

Your idea: 'dark matter is just normal matter that has no energy content' was also my initially declaration. Normal matter is sooner or later visible resp. traceable. It absorbs and emits energy. Should we change our ideas about the background radiation?

Dear Mihai!

Your answer is the actual cause of my question. But every question or answer on RG is observed by guardians of the pure doctrine and if necessary downvoted. I would go even further as you: In fact we have no idea about the causes of gravitational attraction.

@Sergey: A cloud or fog of diffuse matter will sooner or later aggregate. With or without dark matter.

@Marco: I accept your point of view but I do not belive in the theories you mention.

My Regards! Hans

Hans-G.

Yes in my opinion and I realize that it is not the "popular" opinion, we should change the way we look at the back ground radiation.  

The CMBR or Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is and always has been a proving point for my contention that gravity has a limit and that the Universe is infinite in space as is the matter and the amount of galaxies we see. 

However compared to the distance between Galaxies and little amount of light that is really put out by these galaxies there is a horizon to the amount of Galaxies we can see and the others are there spread out evenly to produce the vary consistent back ground.  There is no big bang and there never could have been.  The Universe would look totally different if the big bang had really ever happened.

I understand this is not a popular view but it is the logical one without inconsistencies.

George   

@Hans  Believe is an act of Faith (or lack thereof..>:)

People who know something of the subject (to which I do not count myself) are not welcome. Only those who will confirm this select community in its own beliefs.

What luck we are not among dogmatists!

Not quite, Remi: there is more dark matter than ordinary matter. If it does not interact with ordinary matter, nor self-interact, then it might indeed essentially remain in halos, since you would need some dissipative process to bring it close to massive objects. But the issue is complex, and those who have explicitly been banned from this discussion could conceivably contribute to it.

As an example, a star contracts gravitationally, followed by heating up and radiating the energy away. None of this might happen for non-interacting matter. But, I insist, I do not know enough on the subject to give a reasoned opinion. Controversy exists, and alternative theories have been proposed, to my knowledge the issue remains unsolved.

Cold Dark Matter (CDM) was proposed to explain the structure formation in the universe and the rotation curves of galaxies. General relativity and Newtonian dynamics by themselves cannot explain this. Later MOND attempted to explain the rotation curves without CDM. General relativity uses Schwarzschild solution which is based on weak field approximation. I have proposed an alternative solution to Einstein's field equations which does not use weak field approximation. This alternative solution has a parameter called deviation factor n. This factor n has two solutions. One for constant n and another for variable n. The later solution when applied to rotation curves of galaxies yields correct values and also yields modified Kepler's law for orbital periods of galaxies. This solution uses a galactic matter distribution constant k for a given radius. In the neighborhood of this radius this constant k apply. This uneven matter distribution includes cold dark matter. Cold dark matter need not be any fancy new type of matter. It can be just ordinary matter that is not emitting light, that's all. CDM could be in the form of stars and planets in the halos of galaxies.

http://ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-40-11.PDF

The theory of gravity studied so far in general relativity is only a part of the content of the universe of which a free particle follows the law of inertia.At the same time, the matter content of the universe of which a particle does not follows the law of inertia may not be considered in the field equations of the general relativity.

@F. Leyvraz: Peoples who ask inconvenient questions are ignorant persons? Thats right, isn't it? If I therefore ask you not to link Wikipedia-articles or quote textbooks than I'm sure that I have already read them. (I made a small correction in my question.)

@Marco: I know very well that belive is an act of faith. That's why I say: I do not belive in the most theories. Where is the evidence of "dark matter", of "quarks" and many other self-created necessities of theorie? We can and we have to declare the reality only with the observations, datas, measurments etc. of the reality and not by speculative thoughts about the reality. This last-mentioned is exact the way of all religions.

The current state in physics is: The theories determining the experiments and also the evaluations of the experiments, observations, datas etc. The way of knowledge is turned upside down.

@Hans-G:

“…If I therefore ask you not to link Wikipedia-articles or quote textbooks than I'm sure that I have already read them…”

-?

I didn’t ask you to link Wikipedia etc.; the link in SS posts here was only to “The Informational Conception and Basic Physics” paper [to the Sec. 3.3 Planck mass particles] where it is shown why possibly existent dark matter isn’t concentrated in centers of “usual matter” bodies but creates haloes.

Michai,

“…We speak about the universal gravitational attraction but in fact we have no idea about how universal it is. Maybe it works as known just at given scales and completely different at other scales…”

The gravity isn’t, of course, some manifestation of mystic “spacetime curvature” when the spacetime, which is nothing more then an empty container and emptiness cannot be “curved”, by some again mystic way forces, say, Earth to rotate around Sun.   

But gravity is fourth fundamental Nature force and there is no till now any reasons to think that it acts in different manners in different regions of Matter’s spacetime – as that is true, say for EM force. The light spectrums of atoms in stars in galaxies that are at least on billions light years distances is the same as, say, on Earth, i.e. EM force acts without changes; as well as the distant galaxies are built quite analogously to, say, Milky Way; etc.

Cheers

I am having trouble understanding the Down Votes???

If a professional has a problem with what I say please by all means tell me why you think the logical answer is wrong.  I do not put ideas out there that do not have some logic to them.  I am not saying that they must be or are 100% correct but that they could be a logical way of looking at things in the light of the fact that science has not come up with the correct answer to many problems yet.  This would indicate to me that I must be stepping on someones toes that think they would have to be wrong if I were correct..

This is also a logical conclusion to the down votes without any reason for the down votes.

Hans-G,

Thank you for the up vote.  As up votes can be seen on this system by the person that it was given to but not down votes.  This is I guess so that the down vote can just be a slam or stab in the back without true meaning.

Martin,

I understand why they protect the down vote.  I do not understand why someone with a valid argument against or for something in science would not state the concern?

I have no ill will or want to say bad things but I can not defend what is not stated as the reason for the general comment that you do not understand???

In my way of thinking of this science has set themselves up to be wrong without ever thinking they are wrong.  

I even see this in the area of research and that really worries me.   It is sort of like thinking that if we trust a for profit company that makes 100's of Billions of dollars off of treatments for cancer with finding a cure that that will really happen. 

As a researcher what I am seeking is the truth not just what you think is true and therefore you slam others that say any different.

I hope you get my point.  We cannot fix the problems of today by the thinking that put us here.  Albert Einstein said this more than one hundred years ago and it still applies today...

George

@ HGH: ``@ F. Leyvraz: Peoples who ask inconvenient questions are ignorant persons? Thats right, isn't it?''

It *is* dishonest, you know, to attribute to it people things they never said. I said that it was disturbing to see an RG post with a prohibition for people who trust the extant theories, and thus who presumably know them, to participate in this thread. An indeed, I have seen heartily little informed opinion.

But then in every single thread I have had the experience to witness you in, you have misled, misrepresented, insinuated falsehoods and generally speaking presented a totally false picture of science. Keep it up!

@F. Leyvraz: The problem is more fundamental as your indignant answers on 'inconvenient questions' indicate. You and scientists as you (I call them 'dogmatists') overrule other thoughts as the doctrine allowed. Critical voices are downvoted and described as more or less incompetent in science. The history of science is repating itself. Otto Stern was ridiculed but he proved in 1932 the magnetic moment of the neutron. Even Einstein was the opinion that the continents would never shift ...

Do you know the book: "Vom Urknall zum Durchknall" from the physicist A. Unzicker? (translated freely: "From the big bang to a go cuckoo") The author enumerate the contradictions and incredibleness in physics. Physics is not sustainable in its current state. I'm not a follower of Unzicker but I see clearly the contadictions and the speculative and unproven inventions (not discoveries!) in theoretical physics. I cannot follow this theoretical world view and I'm searching for a realistic and independent new beginning in physics.

Maybe you can give me a convincing answer to the questions: What type of matter is dark matter? Of which particles consist dark matter? How is dark matter arised? What are the evidences of dark matter?

My answer was just uploadet and the first downvote was done. Has the downvoter perused at all?

“…let me tell you, what can happen to you if you try discuss things openly and rationally…[etc. - 5 points]”

In this case  the downvotiong, which here is even rather strange since practically all posts are downvoted, has the 6-th reason – till now in the mainstream there is no explanation – by what reason dark matter exists as haloes; so one can read in published mainstream papers, for example, some fantasy about “strings”, “hair” of dark matter, etc. 

In the posts here the explanation is given, but authors aren’t known practically since their papers are rejecting by mainstream journals editors, and so some members of a disciplined community attempt in this case to form some negative impression for readers marking the posts as some rubbish.

That is usual practice;  though till now their maximal activity was in    https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_non-integral_spin_particles_exist_that_travel_at_the_speed_of_light/3  , where in a few SS posts rather interesting physical idea [and comments why that can be so] was written – that every fermion, including neutrinos, has non-zero rest mass. And  SS post on 3-rd page obtained  4 downvotes.

 And pages in such threads are usually rather short …

Cheers

“Let me add another reason to down-vote and not comment any further:

6. Poor English”

English in the posts is understandable enough, when the content evidently isn’t poor. At that in RG there are a lot of members whose English isn’t native language, and downvoting for “Poor English”, including, for example 4 times (!) – see the link above, is evidently senseless.

Quite the contrary – the downvoters in some cases  too well understand the content…

Cheers

Martin,

I agree with you about the down vote.  There are too many issues in science today however to just be quiet about the problems.  I still respect you even it I do not fully agree with your assessment.   Silents id what has put us on the brink of disaster.  This is one of the reasons that I feel like I can not just be silent about it. 

You are correct to fallow a theory that is proven over and over again but just as we use relativity for calculating orbits for satellite we still us Newton to calculate the path for rockets that are headed to outside the solar system.  This does not mean that the theories are correct but it only means that they are a good approximation for the limits that they are working in.

Just because the thing works does not make it correct.  Just like there is a point in the function of a parabola that it is a good approximation of a circle but it will never work to be used in that function so are we in a dangerous place with our science.

I some years ago realized that Albert Einstein may, and I say this with hesitance, have underestimated the energy content of the atom by as much as 25 times the amount of energy.  This is not to bad on the outset and looks like just maybe a small mistake that is not worrisome until you realize that the largest of the super conducting super colliers have never reached the speed of light in the ability to break things apart.  If they do and the energy content is really some large factor more than what is thought the result could be a disaster of events including melting down the entire region of the country that the collier resides.  So what I am saying here is remember that what you trust as true may have limits that you are not aware of and thereby may exceed.

No big deal you could just loose 10,000 or more of the worlds greatest minds all at once just because we were so convinced that we knew what we were talking about.

I am fully aware that I have no way to show this yet but I would not what that to be the way we prove that science was wrong..

You are also correct that as scientists we are harder on one another than on others.  This is to be expected.  When people become convinced that they are correct they also become blind to others ideas.  

I am sorry for my English.  I say this because it is my native language yet at times it seems to betray me.  

If we are to make a difference in science we must work together to fix the issues of understanding and communication in an open and honest way.

You are however correct that I should stop worrying about the down votes and not see them as a personal attack but just a point to question the comments and work to fix the issues.

George   

Martin,

There would be no worries untel there is a failure because they are not seeing the potential.  This is a moment of if you do not know it can hurt you...

You are correct about the new president. I many times look to see who as up voted so that I know the intent of the vote and add comments to thank them.

George 

If I ever down vote someone I let them know but I have not done that in years.

@ Hans,

A lot of scientists believe that dark matter is actually matter. Some believe it to be the effect of an additional amount of gravitation.

In actual fact Einstein predicted a small increase in the mount of gravitation around gravitational objects- hence the advance in the perihelion of Mercury etc.etc

And actually the small amount of gravitational increases considerably on large scales,- and that turns out to be dark matter.

The problem is that the equations of relativity are so damn complicated that no one can actually do the maths to work this out. The second problem is the maths of relativity has reccurent terms that lead to infinities- like in black hole singularities.

Work out the maths and you solve both problems together.

No need for dark matter as dark matter but as extra gravity

Andrew,

In my theory of Gravity the amount of gravity is increased as the internal energy content goes down.  This would explain some of that.

@George E. Van Hoesen and @Andrew Worsly - 

There are two items that my theory (Hypergeometrical Universe or HU) ties together.  

https://issuu.com/marcopereira11/docs/ibegtodiffer

One is the Gamma Ray Bursts and the other is Gravitational Lensing in regions where Matter is not visibly present (e.g. galactic collisions). 

In view of the Gamma Ray Bursts where the mass of a star is transformed into Gamma Rays in a short period, HU proposes that to be the result of Matter-Antimatter annihilation.  

Since HU also proposes that our 3D Universe is a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface, it comes naturally the question if there was a lagging hypersphere (LH) containing a net amount of antimatter.

That is exactly the proposed candidate for Dark Matter.  Antimatter in a very close (femtometer) lagging hypersphere (LH) containing antimatter, which by being less dense, is colder.

This is a perfect candidate since light would not bounce back from it due to the relationship between these moving frames.  Collisions in one Universe would also not affect the antimatter on other (thus only Gravitational interaction is possible).

GRB would be associated with tunneling events where matter and antimatter stars would lined up in earlier epochs. Extreme proximity and tremendous Gravitation could create the radial motion required to move from LH to our Universe.

Gravitational interaction is also unidirectional. For example, given that the dilaton field travels at sqrt(2) c, if our Universe is 141 de-Broglie cycles ahead of the Hypersphere, a 100 cycles of dilaton field emanating from LH, would 'attract' matter in our Universe. That setup wouldn't work for dilator filed from our Universe attracting antimatter in the LH.

The Spiral Galaxy problem can be tackled with HU Gyrogravitaion.  Dark Matter might not be required.

HU also eliminated the pole on the Laws of Gravitation and Electromagnetism.

To understand this model, there is no need for inventing new maths.

https://issuu.com/marcopereira11/docs/ibegtodiffer

I would follow all theories about gravity if we would exactly know the causes of gravitation.

@Sergey Shevchenko: >English in the posts is understandable enough, when the content evidently isn’t poor. At that in RG there are a lot of members whose English isn’t native language, and...

@Hans-G:

“…I would follow all theories about gravity if we would exactly know the causes of gravitation….”

The gravity is simply fourth [besides the weak, strong and EM forces] fundamental Nature force that governs by interactions of material objects; and with the other forces makes Matter as It is. The main difference of the gravity from other forces is that it acts totally universally, i.e. between every objects, moreover between every elementary particles in Matter, independently on – what  forces else act in concrete cases.

And humans don’t know what is “the causes of gravitation” totally equally as humans don’t know what are the causes of all other fundamental forces…

Cheers

@ Andrew: you said that the problem with dark matter is related with problems involving the complexities of GRT. Why? As far as I understand, dark matter arises on scales and for fields at which the Newtonian approximation is entirely valid: *very* low fields. Indeed, one of the candidate explanations for the same phenomena as drk matter, MOND, differs from Newtonian gravity only at accelerations of the order of 10^(-10) m/s^2. This seems very distant from strong field GRT regime.

According to the theory or relativity, we may study only those part of the matter - energy content of the universe of which a particle follows the geodesic of the Riemannian  geometry based on the inertial space. The other part of the matter-energy content of   the universe is out side the domain if it. If a particle of  this content is observed by an inertial observer, it is accelerating.

@Leyvraz

Yet most dark matter is cosmological and that is where the Newtonian approximation fails.

@ Andrew: I fail to understand your remark. Is the density of dark matter not quite low, and are not the fields it generates Newtonian? What does it mean to say that dark matter is ``cosmological''?

@Daniel: If "dark matter" would have the assumed (better: by theory awarded) properties it should aggregate and blend with other types of matter, par example with the matter on earth.

To say: there exist anywhere and everywhere in the universe an additional type of gravitational matter which declares the current appearance of the universe 14E9 years after the "big bang" is only one side of the coin. If someone made a theory he should concern all consequences.

“Why does the "dark matter" not aggregate and blend with normal matter?

What make you think that it doesn't?”

-   the dark matter particles [if the dark matter indeed exists]  indeed cannot aggregate with normal matter [and cannot form some compact dark matter’s analogues of the normal matter objects as dust, planets, stars, etc. also] since interacts with the normal matter and other dark matter particles by the gravity force exclusively; when only the gravity force cannot result in creating compact and dense objects, besides some practically unreal [in Matter] situations. 

More – see SS posts on pages 1-4 here and Sec. 3.3 “Planck mass particles”  in the paper “The Informational Conception and Basic Physics” linked on.1-st page.

Cheers

@Sergey: The question was: Why does dark matter not aggregate and not: Why does dark matter not interact with normal matter etc. Dark matter should form cluster caused by gravitational force and also blend with normal matter. But there is no evidence.

@Hans-G:

“…The question was… not: Why does dark matter not interact with normal matter etc…”

-?

 – in the SS posts above there isn’t assertion that  dark matter doesn’t interact with normal matter – it interacts, of course, but by the gravity exclusively, when the gravity is quite normal fundamental Nature force;

“…Dark matter should form cluster caused by gravitational force..”

again, if in a system of bodies [including dusts, atoms/molecules/gases, etc.] the bodies interact only gravitationally, such system cannot be a compact cluster, that can be some halo-like compositions only. Normal matter can exist as some compact “dense” objects only because of besides the gravity also EM force between firstly atoms, further – molecules, etc., acts; at that such interactions are inelastic so interacting atoms, etc. decrease their speeds [mostly radiating energy], and after the speeds become be lesser the first cosmic speed (say, 7 km/s for Earth) the atoms, etc. aggregate in some compact system. This process isn’t possible without the gravity force, of course, and when the aggregating system increases, the first cosmic speed increases also, thus more and more atoms, etc. aggregate – up to stars, planets, etc.

But the dark matter particles remain be in halos around the normal matter aggregations – moving without other than gravity interactions and so without energy losses  - only transforming potential energy into kinetic one and reverse; including inside, e.g., stars.

And the motion of normal matter bodies doesn’t result in aggregations, if only gravity force acts – just therefore, for example, satellites rather long time don’t aggregate with Earth  and we can discuss some questions on the RG…

Cheers

Dark matter are those matter of the universe of which a particle dose not follow the law of inertia in a local inertial system.

SBBC  and  QSSC  both are mathematical  models to start .  But mathematics does not always speak truth and it has limitations as mathematics does not have thought of Mind and thought of Creator . Hence both cosmologies are NOT TRUE . Unless we incorporate Mind in cosmology , we cannot make it transparent and understandable to common man . Dr Narlikar is right that SBBC is wrong . He is right that Qusar is seat of Creation . But he is unable to make right model of continuous creation in side Quasar with explaining all observations of BigBang ( 80%) , Steady State ( 5%) and unknown observations ( 15%) .

My point of view is – All physicists understand making of New Model of The universe by participatory science ( 10 Volumes to be read ). I am your new guide appointed by Almighty B.B.B .

After knowing New Model of universe , You would not only like Dr Narlikar but also you would like his simplicity too.

1.Vijay Mohan Das, Atomic genetics and origin of universe ( Ho= 72 km/sec/Mpc ) volume 1, International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR), volume 16 , number 1 ( 2014), p 311-338.

2. Vijay Mohan Das, Atomic genetics and origin of universe  volume 2 International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2014) Volume 16, No 2, pp 274-309

3. Vijay Mohan Das, Atomic genetics and origin of universe  volume 3  International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2014) Volume 17, No 1, pp 148-185

4. Vijay Mohan Das, Atomic genetics and origin of universe  volume 4( part 1)   International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2014) Volume 17, No 1, pp 259-291

5. . Vijay Mohan Das, Atomic genetics and origin of universe  volume 4( part 2)    International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2014) Volume 17, No 1, pp 292-324

6. Vijay Mohan Das, Atomic genetics and origin of universe  volume 5 IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME) e-ISSN: 2320–7388,p-ISSN: 2320–737X Volume 4, Issue 5 Ver. I (Sep-Oct. 2014), PP 72-105 www.iosrjournals.org

7. Vijay Mohan Das, Atomic genetics and origin of universe  volume 6  INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT August, 2014 Vol 3 Issue 8p 194- 210

8. Vijay Mohan Das, Atomic genetics and origin of universe  volume7 Social and basic sciences and  research  review( SBSRR) Volume 2, Issue 4Pages: 197-255

9. Vijay Mohan Das, Atomic genetics and origin of universe  volume 8 IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME)e-ISSN: 2320–7388,p-ISSN: 2320–737X Volume 4, Issue 5 Ver. V (Sep-Oct. 2014), PP 57-98

10. Vijay Mohan Das, Atomic genetics and origin of universe  volume 9 IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME)e-ISSN: 2320–7388,p-ISSN: 2320–737X Volume 4, Issue 5 Ver. III (Sep-Oct. 2014), PP 76-116

11.Vijay Mohan Das Atomic Genetics and Basic Etiology of Cancer* IOSR Journal of Pharmacy and Biological Sciences (IOSR-JPBS) e-ISSN: 2278-3008, p-ISSN:2319-7676. Volume 9, Issue 3 Ver. II (May -Jun. 2014), PP 59-80 www.iosrjournals.org

The exact cause of Gravity is exactly what My theory of gravity is all about.

Milai,

I agree.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...tter-after-four-years-of-searching/

- yeah, some people having no ideas what is the dark matter obtained quite natural zero outcome.

When if they could understand  that (i) – possible dark matter particles can have rather large rest mass, [for example – if the dark matter particles are Planck mass particles, that have mass ~1019 BeV, so their concentration in the space is lesser then baryons’  one in 1019 times]

and (ii) – since the particles interact with each other and usual matter by gravity exclusively, so the cross sections are similar to neutrinos’ one;

they possibly could understand before the experiment that the result will be zero…

Cheers

@ Remi: when a system of particles moves according to classical mechanics, it does *not* in general, aggregate, even if the forces are attractive. That is why the planets in the solar system have stayed comfortably apart all these years. In order for a system to collapse to a star, there must be dissipation of some sort. Absent the dissipation, and that is assumed to be so due to the weak interaction between dark matter and ordinary matter, and also, if I understand rightly, between dark matter itself, aggregation will not arise. In the absence of noticeable dissipation, gravitation is not enough to allow particles to cluster: when clustering is initiated, average kinetic energy goes up, and does not allow the clustering to proceed unless somehow dissipated away.

At a time a particle following the law of inertia and other particle not following the  law of inertia.The matter content of the universe of which the second particle belongs May not be considered in general relativity.It may be more transparent when one derive the relation between the coordinates systems

>>Remi Cornwall 

“…OK. They would still cluster together under the attractive force of gravity. You are still begging the question…”

-?

– why systems of material bodies, including particles, that interact  only gravitationally cannot cluster together is explained practically in every SS post here and correctly repeated by Leyvraz in his two posts; such systems can be only some halo-like structures. Because of the cross-section of gravitational interactions of some particles is very small [because of extremely weakness of the gravity force], and this cross-section rapidly decreases when relative speeds of particles increases, in very hot usually cores of large cosmic objects some interactions of dark  matter particles with matter are practically impossible, again – something like to neutrinos. Thus [rather probably cold] dark matter particles, if exist, can exist only as haloes around the structures.

 “…If it had a large wavelength and/or was very cold, then Pauli exclusion could be a mechanism..”

that seems as non-adequate to the reality, Pauli exclusion principle works when in a system of particles the particles interact; in systems of free particles that isn’t so. Dark matter particles are practically free particles.

“…I bet dark matter is very cold neutrinos…”

that seems as not too real also; in this case is necessary to have an rational explanation – how these cold neutrinos could be created in Matter, taking into account the fact that neutrinos having extremely small rest mass must so have extremely small energies – for example to aggregate with Sun to have speeds  lesser a few tens km/s.

Cheers

>>“…[Pauli exclusion principle works when in a system of particles the particles interact;]

Incorrect. Pauli exclusion is not based on any interaction - electrical, weak, nuclear, gravitational. Identical particles of n1/2 spin cannot occupy the same volume…”

Pauli exclusion – as everything in Matter, isn’t something magic and omnipotent thing; it means that there exist some corresponding force that implicitly “partially” exist in the 4 fundamental Nature forces. It isn’t known in recent physics, but that isn’t a reason to assert that it doesn’t exist; again, if it doesn’t exist some magic appears. And this force isn’t infinite [doesn’t act in infinite volumes] also, when it acts, say, in EM force in atoms’ electronic shells, free electrons in known [and rather dense] experimental beams aren’t disposed correspondingly with the principle and, for example it is possible to make well polarized beams – just because of electrons have the spins.   

“…I'm sorry, you are going to have to think classically on this one and not talk about hypothetical cross-sections gravity interactions for quantum particles because no such theory exists…”

Cross-sections of some interactions depend as a rule on two main parameters – de Broglie [relative speeds] wavelength and strength/probability of the interaction. The wavelengths of  particles [not of possible dark matter particles that probably have large rest mass and so small lengths] in existent Matter are mostly large, but the gravity force is extremely weak; so at a rough approximation we can conclude that, for example, the gravitational cross-section  for the same energy interactions is in tens orders lesser then for EM force.  And this point isn’t too much essential in the aggregation problem, though; since to make aggregations principally is necessary also for interactions be inelastic with losing of essential energy – what again is impossible at gravity interactions because of the extreme weakness of the interactions.

Again – only gravity by no means can lead to an aggregation of interacting bodies, just therefore, for example, Sun's planets [+ comets, dust, etc.] didn’t aggregate with Sun in near 5 Billions of years; when the planet system [+ comets…]  is a plain halo around Sun…

Cheers

@ Remi,

There is plenty of literature on that. Neutrinos have been used to model dark matter. I think the difficulty in that case is that neutrinos are too efficient in destroying inhomogeneities, and one cannot account for the observed existence of galaxies, but that is just something I remember reading.

As to dark matter, no doubt it forms lumps, but galactic sized lumps, not stars, nor does it concentrate on existing stars or planets: for that to happen, you need dissipation. Ask yourself what would happen to a dissipation free halo around a galaxy: it would stay there for a long while, orbiting. In star formation, a collapsing dust cloud becomes hot, which means that it radiates the heat away via photons. That requires a coupling  to the EM field, absent for DM.

Why we do not detect them? Again, if DM is assumed to be very weakly interacting, like neutrinos, the question answers itself.

A real problem seems rather to be that the usual suspects for DM are not being created in LHC and have not been observed.

As for the Pauli principle, to decide whether it is relevant, you should compute the thermal length hbar/(m vth), where vth is the thermal speed, and compare it with the mean interparticle spacing: that tells you whether quantum effects matter. My hunch is, they would not.

As for neutrino cooling, it happens in the same way as did the cooling of the CMB photons: cosmological red shift.

I have checked Wikipedia on Dark Matter, and it seems quite informative. Neutrinos are classified there as Hot Dark Matter, ruled out by large redshift galaxy observations.

As for neutrinos reacting with EM, the size of such reactions is strongly bounded by experimental knowledge, so whether or not it is possible at all, it remains very small, so that clumping is inhibited.

Who can give a precise definition of the term "particle"?

"Too qualitative". Agreed. I am not a specialist and cannot give you quantitative upper bounds. The fact, generally stated, that most neutrinos go through the Earth without a scattering event, indicates that the coupling to the E M sector is rather weak. A quantitative statement surely exists, I do not know it exactly.

Clumping requires transporting away the heat generated by gravitational contraction. In ordinary matter, this happens via radiation. For neutrinos, or for other postulated weakly interacting particles, this mechanism is so weak that it is insufficient to allow such a contraction, at least in the necessary time frame. You are right that these  issues are detailed and quantitative. For that very reason, they should, and I believe have, been attacked by complex extensive numerical work, and cannot be decided by verbal argument.

Dark matter is not mixed or aggregated with the observed matter as it is the kinetic energy of rotation of the space of the observable universe. See please: ROTATING SPASE OF THE UNIVERSE, AS A SOURCE OF DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01329145v1

Remi> Neutrinos have mass and so a magnetic moment thus they can interact with EM.

Unfortunately, this magnetic moment is very small. In the Standard Model (extended to massive Dirac neutrinos), it has been calculated (40 years ago) to

mu_nu = 2.2 x 10-19 x (m_nu/1 eV) mu_B 

where mu_B is the Bohr magneton. The current experimental constraint is

mu_nu < 2.9 x 10-11  mu_B

Hans-G,

“Who can give a precise definition of the term "particle"?”

the fact that everything what exist in our Universe and outside is/are some informational patterns, including everything in Matter, is rigorously proven. Including “particles” are singled out by some individual [logical] connections informational patterns, which

– as that follows from the facts that (i) -  particles uninterruptedly change their internal states [so move along t-axis in 4D Matter’s sub-spacetime] and (ii) - from that in spite of (i) particles have essentially stable (in time) properties, e.g., two main baryons and electrons have the same properties at least billions of years,

-  [are some close-loop logical algorithms that are realized on primitive “logical gates” [“fundamental logical elements”, “FLE”].

The FLEs are some logical systems also and are rather probably common primary gates for any types of particles.

Cyclic algorithm results in that every “fundamental” particle is some “gyroscope” and so has proper [internal] angular momentum – a spin, s, which in this case can be equal s=ћ and s= 1/2ћ; besides – because of this cyclic motion every particle has an inertia – and so “inertial mass”, as a resistance of gyroscope to change the value or direction of corresponding 4D rotation rate.

From experiments with a large probability follow, that:

-  FLE has 4 main independent degrees of freedom at changing its state, that relate to [cause] 4 dimensions of Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime, and, besides,

- FLE has some other degrees of freedom at changings their states, so that when FLEs form the “hardware” chain of concrete type of particles, along this chain there are some sections, where these additional degrees of freedom are “activated”. These sections realize themselves as “charges”  - till now surely are known gravitational and electrical charges, possibly there exist “weak” and “strong” charges, though the two last can be organized in the algorithms not so directly as that seems E and G charges do.

Besides seems as rather rational to suggest that Matter’s 4D sub-spacetime is filled by a dense lattice of the FLEs, and particles are some disturbances in the lattice after transmitting to a lattice’s FLE some energy/momentum; and, besides, at a particle’s continuous 4D motion in the lattice, its “charged” FLEs impact on the lattice’s FLEs, corresponding inducted disturbances [natural forces mediators] start move in the lattice transmitting [at least in 3D space] corresponding interaction, i.e., creating corresponding fields.

****

Thus, for example, with a great probability there is no some links between the inertial mass of a particle and charges; so, e.g. if neutrinos haven’t electric charge section in their algorithms, they cannot have some magnetic momentums, in spite of that they have rest masses;  and, besides,

for claims that neutrinos can be “dark matter” particles now there is no  any experimental and other rational grounds – since because of that neutrinos’ rest masses  roughly are 10-12 of the matter’s baryons masses, to form dark matter is necessary to suggest that at Beginning number of created neutrinos was 1012 times larger then of creating baryons – physics doesn’t know till now some interactions with such neutrinos/baryons production ratio…

More – see the link in the SS post on 1-st page.

Cheers

In the first place, it should be decided if Dark Matter isn't a figment. The concept of Dark Matter was invented. One reason was that the orbiting stars in disc galaxies don't follow Kepler's laws. Why should they, by the way? Kepler's law is only valid for a big central mass and few, tiny orbiting masses. Newton's law however is valid in all cases (for not too high velocities). If one would have used Newton's law instead of Kepler's law, one would come to the correct velocities of the stars in disc galaxies, without Dark Matter, even for the outer stars of the galaxy.

In my very simple exerpt below, I show that when a spherical or an elliptical galaxy becomes a disc galaxy, due to a rotating center, one gets another mass structure, hence another calculus for the velocity of the stars. It is found that the right velocities are found without Dark Matter. That simply follows from the fact that in elliptic galaxies, the center can be seen as an almost Keplerian center, with individually orbiting stars about it, while with a disc galaxy, an orbiting star isn't gravitationally independent, but is ruled by the bulges gravity and a large part of the disc.

The process of the transformation from a spherical/elliptical galaxy to a disc is that the angular momentum of the center of the elliptic galaxy is transmitted to the surroundings by gravity (something GRT-proponents don't understand), which will make the orbits swivel prograde with that angular momentum vector, just like electric solenoids align in a magnetic field. The orbit diameters are nevertheless more or less maintained during the swiveling. The spherical/elliptical galaxy becomes a disc galaxy by that swiveling, and the magnetic-like gravity-dipole it forms by its motions give a continuous 'vertical' pressure as with Saturns rings.

This causes the formed disc galaxy to have a mass distribution that is strongly different from the expected distribution by 'vertical' smashing, and which causes the attraction of stars in the disc to be different than expected.

It is indeed known from gravitomagnetism, which was successfully tested by the Gravity Probe B, that a spherical or an elliptical galaxy becomes a disc galaxy when the center is rotating. It is also known that the faster the center rotates, the stronger the magnetic-like second field that makes swivel the orbits into prograde orbits, and bring them at the equatorial level of the rotating center.

"I do not think that the down-voters are allowed to speak on this thread. They are most likely part of the "doctrine" and might be tempted to refer to commonly accessible sources.

And in general down-voting has to be anonymous to protect the down-voter from bad consequences if he or she expresses his or her opinion by labelling poor content."

Correct. The paper that I provided has a calculus. If it can be falsified, please let me know. If not, just learn how progress in science should be obtained...

Remi, thank you for your information. I will clarify the one and the other thing.

"it all condensed from one gas cloud with rotation, much as a solar system".

1) I would like to see a system like that: a gas cloud with rotation, the size of a galaxy. Can somebody show one?

2) I would like to see a planetary system that only have a few planets at large distances from each-other, that is one gas cloud with rotation. Can somebody show one?

The disc galaxies' formation

In fact, it is not reasonable that a disc galaxy would have been formed from a gas cloud with rotation. A gas cloud has zero angular momentum or at least a relatively tiny global angular momentum. Not a gigantic one.

There is no reason that the gas cloud would suddenly get a certain angular momentum from somewhere. There is no reason that the gas cloud would only condense when it is a disc, since in the halo there a quite a lot of old stars remaining.

Any part of the cloud that is dense enough can spin locally, and transmit angular momentum by gravity.

It can make the rest of the cloud follow the angular momentum bit by bit and make the orbits swivel nearby the core, get more compact by gravity and spin even faster.

The calculus of the constant star velocities in disc galaxies

In the calculus, I clearly started from random Keplerian orbits in an spherical/elliptic galaxy, with a plausible mass distribution. The most generalized situation ever.

Due to the transmission of the angular momentum by gravity, the orbits swivel to the plane and form the disc. This make the system non-Keplerian, because the central mass including the disc is dense, so, it cannot be seen as the center alone in order to calculate the orbits.

As I proved, the velocities of the orbits become flattened, due to the new, non-Keplerian mass distribution, with nearly the same stars' velocity everywhere, as observed.

This shows that the transmission of angular momentum is the very reason of the constant velocity of the stars in disc galaxies.

The planets' formation

It is nonsense that planetary systems with *few, distant planets* would occur out of a gas cloud with rotation for the same reason as with galaxies. That is technically impossible.

On the contrary, with a statistical fit of nearly 98% (more than 3 sigma), it is established that the planets were formed by an electromagnetic burst from the Sun, giving charged loops, two by two: the core planets by the electron side, the gas planets by the proton-side. The proton loops repulsed each-other, and the electron-loops as well.

The verification of the hypothesis lays in the impulse-balance of the protons and the electrons for both the gas-planets and the core-plates. See the annexed book.

The planets have swiveled in the sun's equatorial plane (prograde direction) by the transmission of the Sun's angular momentum.

The Titius-Bode law, which defines the orbital distances empirically, complies with statistically nearly 95% of probability with the hypothesis of the repulsion of the loops. The hypothesis fits precisely with the observed orbit radii.

That is the reason why there are few, and mutually distant planets in our planetary system.

Gravitomagnetism

By the way, gravitomagnetism is *not* an approximation of GR. It was created by Oliver Heaviside in 1893.

The nowadays' gravito-electromagnetism is an ersatz, deduced from GRT with much pain in the arse, which used allegedly modified time (from the wrong SRT interpretation), and oblate spheres instead of spherical ones.

http://gsjournal.net/books/Planetary-System-Creation-Theory.pdf

Dark matter and dark energy would go away if we understood gravity better.  Yes we can calculate it well but that is just math.  The concept of "what is gravity" has never been found.

Until we understand gravity there will be many things that we just do not have an explanation for missing information or matter or energy..

Once we realize that there is a limit to gravity posed by Max Planck which we have not recognized, because the limits of gravity hold to the limits of the Quanta understood by Max Planck and Albert Einstein more than one hundred years ago.  This will then open the door to allow for the quantized limit of gravity to be used and the Universe will look a little different.  

This will then enable us to see the mistakes that we have made in the past and bring us to a richer understanding of Gravity and Space.

4 mins and already a down vote.....  I think that is a reocord.  I must be on the correct path or the decent would not be so quick..

If anyone can tell me why everything in the Universe except gravity is dictated by Quantum Mechanics???

George,

“…If anyone can tell me why everything in the Universe except gravity is dictated by Quantum Mechanics???…”

everything in Universe, of course, is dictated by Quantum Mechanics, including gravity. Gravity is fourth fundamental Nature force, when quantum nature of any change, including in changing gravitational systems,  is obligatory, since that [quantization of states of changing object/system] is realization of fundamental self-inconsistence of the notion/phenomenon “a Change”.

That is the objective reality, though.

 But in humans’ society there are a lot of humans that don’t understand this principle and indeed think that gravity is some exclusion comparing with other fundamental Nature forces that also change at interactions parameters of bodies’ motion. Or, more correct, they think that gravity isn’t a Nature force at all, when curved motions of bodies in the gravity is determined by  that  the bodies are impacted by “curved spacetime”, which, in turn, is curved by some “mass”.

Though these humans cannot explain – how the spacetime impacts on, for example, Earth, so that it rotates around Sun and how Sun curves the spacetime; moreover, they cannot explain what is the spacetime at all, they truly believe in the corresponding theory...

Possibly it could be useful to read also SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_real_gravitational_field_of_sub_atomic_particles#589321a840485443a977c2ca

which is relevant to the text above to certain extent

Cheers

What if gravity and electromagnetic attraction were both emergent free fall phenomena?

Esa,

I am convinced they are the same.  This is why no one has solved the problems with why they seem so different.  The problem is that thermodynamics and quantum motion change the equations.

``The outer reaches of a galaxy is moving much faster than it should be. So how does a halo around it contain it?''

The dark matter is organized in a roughly spherically symmetric manner around the galaxy. By Newton's theorem, it is the part inside the radius of a given star that matters. But because the halo is approximately spherical, it has a much greater volume than the galactic disk, and thus, even though the dark matter density is low, the total mass involved is large and keeps the outer stars within the galaxy.

Halo may, in that sense, be a misleading word. It is certainly not a shell outside the galactic disk, in the way that an ordinary halo is a disk outside the head.

``the outer star systems would be attracted to the halo.''

No, a spherically symmetric mass distribution exerts no force on elements inside it.

As to neutrinos: yes the Universe in the first few minutes was dense enough that even neutrinos were constantly colliding with ordinary matter. But precisely the constant existence of such collisions pretty much precludes any possibility of these neutrinos having, at these early times, different thermal properties from the rest of the matter. At a well-known time, neutrinos decouple (just like photons, only far earlier) and from then on are merely subject to cosmological red shift. That suggests we may reliably calculate the background neutrino temperature, since neutrino decoupling presumably happened when the Universe was in a well-understood phase. From such arguments and rather extensive simulations, it is shown that such a model is in quantitative disagreement with observations of early galaxies. I do not say it is in any way obvious whether such a model is right or wrong. I merely cite people who say so. To maintain the opposite position would also require detailed arguments and calculations.

OK, I was wrong to use the word ``around''. It is a roughly spherical mass, inside which lies the galactic disk. Since the dark matter gravitates, it cannot well form a shell. As I said, the part of the spherical shell at radii less than that of the star you consider do pull the star inside, as if the mass were concentrated at the sphere's center.

I am not making this up: here is Wikipedia, which I recommended before:

``The distribution of dark matter in galaxies required to explain the motion of the observed matter suggests the presence of a roughly spherically symmetric, centrally concentrated halo of dark matter with the visible matter concentrated in a central disc.[48]''

“…"halo" to me means something like what is seen in those old biblical paintings - an annulus…”

yeah.  Again  - Sun’s planet system is a plain halo around Sun just as old biblical paintings; which was formed so because two main causes  -of  coalescence of “simple matter” because of loosing energy of this matter at EM interactions and of [seems mostly] Sun’s angular momentum. At absence of the momentum Sun’s halo would consist of a rather large matter’s aggregations, but being at that spherical – as the halo around Earth of humans’ made satellites. For possible dark matter the first cause doesn’t exist and so the second cause rather probably practically doesn’t work also...

Cheers

"The outer reaches of a galaxy is moving much faster than it should be."

I have explained in an earlier post that the orbital velocities of the stars in a disc galaxy become constant because they are now inside a disc, with a characteristic mass distribution, that occurred after the swiveling of the orbits from the original galaxy.

It was found in my paper that the orbital velocity is (nearly) constant, nearly the value that would be got if one would consider only the bulge (not the disc) at the radius of that bulge. For the whole disk, that same value is found, within the limits of the assumed trivial and plausible mass distribution of the original galaxy!

The fact that the outer edges show much faster velocities is due to two phenomena.

1) The first is that the angular momentum is mainly present in the bulge, but that a part of it has been transmitted to the surroundings by gravity, resulting in the rotating disc. However, the outer parts of the disk are farther away from the main angular momentum of the bulge, resulting in a less dense disc at the outer edge. Hence, the "disc effect" that makes all the orbits get nearly the constant velocity (i.e. the one at the bulge's radius if there where no disc), is strongly reduced.

Pro memore: velocity in the disc is nearly v²=GM/R with M and R from the bulge.

2) The second is that the Newtonian integration of the swiveled mass into the disc is much different from that of a sphere, and doesn't give a Keplerian orbital motion of the stars inside the disc.

In the present case, this means that the orbital velocity of the stars in the disc is ruled by three terms: the first term is the part due to the bulge, the second is the part of the disc "inside" the considered orbit, and the third term (with oposite sign) is the part of the disc "after" the considered orbit, that also helps to pull the stars back inside the disc from the rear side. Near the outer edge, that third term becomes zero.

Since there is no further disc mass beyond the edge in order to keep the stars trapped and attracted in the disc, the velocities are not restricted to the values in the disc, and they become much faster. Indeed, instead of being the orbital velocity in the disc, (equivalent to the Keplerian motion about the bulge only at its radius, as if there were no disc, as found in my paper), now, the *whole mass* of the bulge + disc has to be taken with quasi-Keplerian orbits. (Since the bulge + disc is not spherical, it will not be totally Keplerian).

This configuration now gives much higher orbital velocities at the outer edge.

Halo is a bad word. Take the Wikipedia expression:

``a roughly spherically symmetric, centrally concentrated halo of dark matter ''

Dark matter can condense in large, Galaxy size blobs purely gravitationally, but is not able to further contract, due to lack of dissipation. Why it stops at this scale is not quite clear to me.

But assuming the model, an outer star is affected by all the dark matter closer to the centre than the star. That is still rather a lot of matter, since it is distributed over a sphere, rather than a disk.

Read! Since when is a centrally concentrated spherical mass distribution, in which the galactic disk is found, ``outside the Galaxy''. It is a sphere, somewhat concentrated at the center, part of which is inside, and part of which  is outside, the Galaxy. The part that is inside keeps the stars bound. 

To Thierry I can say nothing, since he uses a peculiar theory of his (gravitomagnetism) and his ``calculations'' are impossible to argue with, as they contain no single piece of coherent reasoning. One equation follows another without rhyme or reason. If one does computations on GEM, it is massively wrong on all of the standard tests.

To Sergey I also do not say much: it is of course legitimate to doubt DM: there is only indirect evidence. But the evidence is strong enough that the vast majority are now divided in two sides: DM and those who argue that Newton's laws must be modified to allow for stronger attraction at weak fields (MOND). Sergey in other respects is a relativity denier, so I am not willing to follow him wherever the fancy takes him.

@Remi:  “…This DM is outside the galaxy…”

dark matter’s halo isn’t outside the galaxy only, in the halo dark matter’s particles move continuously  through practically arbitrary orbits that are totally or partially inside the galaxy, including these orbits can be even inside and around stars – because of dark matter particles don’t interact with usual matter and cannot loose their energies [excluding some rare cases gravitational interactions with large masses with deceleration of the particles, but that doesn’t lead to a coalescence]; though at motion the ratio between their kinetic and potential energy continuously changes. The unique condition – the particles’ speeds must be lesser then the second cosmic speeds in  corresponding gravitational systems.

That is written yet in the SS posts on 1-st page in this thread (and in the paper in the link in the first post); as well as in SS posts practically always is written “if the dark matter exists”.

Though from [your post on 8 page] “…Leyvraz and Kare have said that there is no interaction of dm so it cannot clump…”  seems follows that you don’t read SS posts attentively enough at all, for example this assertion was written in the first SS post and repeated in others before Leyvraz and Kare repeated it also…

Cheers

The transmission of angular momentum by gravity has nothing to do with calculations being right or wrong.

All the calculations of this solution are further Newtonian. It is not because F. Leyvraz is a GRT proponent and unable to follow simple mathematical and Newtonian reasoning in the annexed paper, that it is wrong...

It is not because I am a ``proponent of GRT'' that you are wrong. It is merely because your equation (6.6) just stands there without any justification whatever. Yours is merely a stated credo, and in noway resembles anythhing like  a calculation.

The problem with missing mass is usually considered in terms of the virial theorem, which makes the actual shape of the galaxy irrelevant. The mass implied by the stellar random velocities via the virial theorem is larger than the mass implied by the observed stars, by a significant factor.  slong as you do not address this issue, it is also impossible to take you work seriously.

That none of this has anything to do with me---and everything to do with your propagandistic attitude to ``research''---is just about the only correct thing you have stated.

Is there a relation between the CMBR distribution and the dark matter distribution in a galaxy?

The origin of the equation (6.6) is well explained. The text explains that the angular collapse of the orbits of the original galaxy, shown in fig.6.2 results in the fig.6.3, whereby the 3D-masses of each oignon layer is swiveled to a very condensed rings, with the disc's thickness, as shown.

The orbital velocities in the spherical galaxy can be considered Keplerian, because the galaxy's center is the main mass about which the stars orbit, and the masses of the other stars in the galaxy can be neglected as in the solar system, which results in Keplerian orbits.

The disc galaxy gets condensed masses. Hence, in order to calculate the orbit velocities in the disc, one must take the total mass of the bulge and the disc until the considered orbit.

This gives the approximate Keplerian picture for the mass (bulge + part of disc) until the considered orbit, which is the equation (6.6).

Since in the equation (6.6) there are only constants and multiples in the numerator and denominator, the equation is nearly constant, hence, the velocities in the disc remain the same from the bulge's edge to the end of the disk in a first approach.

As explained in my former post, the outer reaches of a galaxy is moving much faster than it should be, because:

1) the outer parts of the disk are farther away from the main angular momentum of the bulge, resulting in a less dense disc at the outer edge. Hence, the disc's velocity is not valid any more, and it becomes more Keplerian with the whole galaxy as mass.

2) the part of the disc "after" the considered orbit, that also helps to pull the stars back inside the disc from the rear side, is missing at the disc's edge. Hence, the disc's velocity is not valid any more, and it becomes more Keplerian with the whole galaxy as mass.

Keplerian velocities decrease as the inverse of the square root of the distance. The observed constancy of velocity precisely contradicts Keplerian behaviour, which would indeed be expected for stars far from the galactic centre. But this behaviour is essentially never found.

In any case, you should address the central quantitative question. What happens, in your world, with the virial theorem, which is a cornerstone of Newtonian mechanics? You somehow want to produce a Newtonian explanation of the issue and disregard basic Newtonian facts, which contradict your explanation.

That was the clear advantage with downvoting: you could warn a reader that a post was trash without needing to go into the details. Also, one did not need to be excessively explicit as to *why* the post was trash: the new policy may be less kind to the trashers than the latter imagine.

Leyvraz, answering boldly without first reading will not help keeping your mainstream mantra alive.

Indeed, the amazing result of the simple Newtonian integration shows that the orbital velocity at the bulge's radius is v²=GMo/Ro , with Mo and Ro the bulge's properties, and *it remains* the same value all along the disc, except at the outer edge, where there is no mass *behind* the disc to maintain the stars in the disc at the same speed.

The outer stars are now attracted by the global galaxy, which is (apart from being a disc and not a sphere, as requested by Keplerian motion) much more Keplerian-like.

See “The virial theorem”, Wikipedia. Are you asking from every graduate who performs a simple Newtonian integration of a mass in order to obtain the gravity, to “do something with the virial theorem”?

@Thierry: I agree with you and some other colleagues on RG. It is about time that some "great theories" of the last century are reconsidered. I see no valid reason for dark matter but I see many contradictions caused by the existence of "dark matter".

Nobody knows what "dark matter" exactly would be and where it should be located. Its properties gives rise to the assumption that it would blend with normal matter. But there is no observation. To retrieve "neutrinos" from deep storage as a part of the "dark matter" is another sleight of hand by the dogmatists in physics. Nothing in the whole universe evades from observation respectively the unequivocal and direct evidence.

Only pipe dreams are incapable of proof - what a pity!

Hans,

it seems that dark matter sometimes takes the room of the grey matter....

I have my hypothesis but it's only the hypothesis based on analysis of different case of dark matter halos: spiral galaxies, galaxy clusters and especially the Bullet Cluster.

There might be the feature of gravitational mass vacuum that gravity wells maintain their motion states and can change them only by interactions just like normal bodies. So, when two gravity wells collide there is huge volume of gravity fields that cannot collide but only change gravitational information waves wich are absorbed and emitted locally as quanta of steepness of gravity well. Because of  limit speed of interaction, light speed c, kinetic energy between gravity wells need huge amount of time to transfer into to baryonic stellar matter, in fact never to be completed (in spiral galaxies it's continuous process between arms and lacunas).

Hence, the dark mass could be potential/kinetic energy of gravity wells as extra gravity flux. That seems to be compatible with the emergent gravity and the holografic principle.

Not all the matter and energy of the universe may be considered in single frame of reference. The general relativity deals only those matter and energy of the universe of which a free particle follows the law of inertia in a local inertial frame.