Misleading Concepts: Dark Matter

While a quite natural idea at first sight, there is increasing evidence that the anomalies in galaxy dynamics cannot be resolved with hypothetical particles.

[CandideSchmyles]

After 40years following the scientific "cutting edge" I have seen my trust in the integrity of the leading institutions crumbling. The only true progress has come from observational instruments and technology. The theoretical side is not just stagnant but borderline corrupt and bereft of genuine progress.

[Real]

Invisible matter and energy are essential, because they explain the existence of goblins, ghosts and many other familiar beings.

[steveballzack]

As a non physicist I find it completely backwards to observe the universe, see that it doesn't agree with your theories, and then simply make up a bunch of particles and energy that can't be observed in order to shore up your broken theory. It's like, helloooo!!! Time to start from scratch, boys!!!

[deoproximo]

I always felt that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are fill ins for stuff we don't understand. A fill in isn't a thing. I think other explanations could be that gravity isn't always the same everywhere and energy moves at different speeds depending on where they are in space and time. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are the God of the Gaps type thing. It's religion and not observabable science as such.

[ajayvee]

Prof Don Scott (from the Safire experiments) has already provided a plausible mathematical model of galactic rotation that fits the observational data quite well. The flattened disc appears to follow an inverse linear relationship between velocity and radius, rather than the inverse square relationship that gravity alone would predict. The ‘glue’ that holds the disc in an apparently rigid form comes from the enormous electromagnetic forces that link the stars and the interstellar plasma.

[michaelvelik]

If the only force that’s considered in astrophysics is gravity, then hypotheses like dark matter are proposed to explain observed phenomena. After all more epicycles is all that’s needed to explain planetary motion from a geocentric point of view.

[martinsavage]

Great channel. There is too much group think in physics and not enough scepticism.

[surendranmk]

You are doing a great job. Respects you very much for seeking the reality in physics. Concepts of dark matter, and dark energy is not only misleading but also extremely foolish!

[fouadudh]

Redshift is not an accurate measurement of velocity of distant celestial bodies.

[PavlosPapageorgiou]

One interesting thread raised by the Wolfram physics project is that the dimensionality of the universe may not be exactly 3. It could be a fractal dimension that's lower than 3 in areas of very empty space, leading to gravity that decays less than inverse square over sparse areas. Estimates of distance and speed would also vary leading to a universe that's closer together, in terms of dimensional connectivity, than it appears to us.

[cesarjom]

In addition to the higher rotational velocities of outer galaxy regions that makes dark matter a possible explanation, we also observe gravitational lensing of galaxies and galaxy clusters as evidence of extra (dark) matter. But it would be interesting to explore alternative explanations in modifications to theory of gravity.

[MrDino]

It’s very easy to be a critic, but what is your better alternative explanation?

[alexandrekassiantchouk]

Colin Powell presented dark matter in test-tube back in 2003 in UN

[wesbaumguardner]

That is because it is the electromagnetic field that is accelerating these bodies. There are massive currents that flow through the entire universe.

[GitBits]

I see a problem not only with Dark Matter, but even more with the Dark Matter "explanation". If the problem can be summarized as external stars of a spinning galaxy moving too fast for the amount of mass that we can detect, then it logically follows that the stars located closer to the center of said galaxy would be considered to be moving at a more reasonable, slower speed.

But if we decide to add hypothetical Dark Matter to the mix, we can then "solve" the problem of excessive speed for external stars - since we've now "added" the mass that makes the math work.

...For the external stars, that is. With all this new alleged Dark Matter floating around, wouldn't the speed of the INTERNAL stars - those closer to the center - now be considered TOO SLOW ? With all this newly "discovered" dark mass lurching in the center of the galaxy, wouldn't the internal stars now need to be sped up for them to be able to stay on their orbit ?

[erbalumkan]

To all those who believe in an expanding universe i have some questions.
What is it that the universe is expanding in to?
If the universe is expanding, does that mean that the distance between galaxies is expanding? Distance between stars in those galaxies? Between stars and their planets? Between planets and their moons? Between molecules? Atoms? Where does it end?

[Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Could quantized inertia explain away Dark Matter? If everything is based on a universal process of energy exchange, formed by light photon ∆E=hf energy continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons. This process is based on conformal geometry of shape dynamics and is not scale-dependent. We have a geometrical process at low temperatures and small scales relative to the atoms. At high temperatures, we have the same dynamic geometry relative to plasma.

[springinfialta]

If there is such a thing as dark matter, even if it is only one type of particle, I can explain the rotation of all stars in all galaxies by adjusting the energy of the particle, the number of particles, and the distribution of particles for each galaxy. This is truly an unfalsifiable theory.

[PoorMansChemist]

I think your criticism is valid but it would be more helpful if you presented an alternative hypothesis that explains our observations.

[shodan]

Yes. I think that Dr..Pavel Kroupa has dealt a heavy blow to the Dark Matter model, if you are familiar with his work.

However, I am unclear with how to answer the observations of gravitational lensing, .which also suggest a higher mass.

Another favorite talking point for Dark Matter proponents is the Bullet Cluster. Here also appears to be some unexplained mass, though this is less troubling than the lensing effects.

How do you view these observations?