Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

New theory of gravity could remove need for dark matter


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

  • The title was changed to New theory of gravity could remove need for dark matter
 

Excellent news! This is frosting (oops) icing on my cake.

Edited by zep73
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

So not new, its MOND.

New data.

Quote

There are many other failures of the standard cosmological model that we investigated in our review, with Mond often able to naturally explain the observations. The reason the standard cosmological model is nevertheless so popular could be down to computational mistakes or limited knowledge about its failures, some of which were discovered quite recently.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, zep73 said:

Excellent news! This is frosting (oops) icing on my cake.

Here is update information from a scientific journal article dated 6 July 2020 you may find interesting on the subject of Dark Matter!

Shedding new light on dark matter: 

A team of physicists has developed a method for predicting the composition of dark matter -- invisible matter detected only by its gravitational pull on ordinary matter and whose discovery has been long sought by scientists. Its work, which appears in the journal Physical Review Letters, centers on predicting "cosmological signatures" for models of dark matter with a mass between that of the electron and the proton. Previous methods had predicted similar signatures for simpler models of dark matter. This research establishes new ways to find these signatures in more complex models, which experiments continue to search for, the paper's authors note.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/07/220706133253.htm

Below is the Fill Open Access Peer reviewed Journal:

Joint Cosmic Microwave Background and Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Constraints on Light Dark Sectors with Dark Radiation: https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.021302

@L.A.T.1961 THOUGHT you may be interested in this also!

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Here is update information from a scientific journal article dated 6 July 2020 you may find interesting on the subject of Dark Matter!

Shedding new light on dark matter: 

A team of physicists has developed a method for predicting the composition of dark matter -- invisible matter detected only by its gravitational pull on ordinary matter and whose discovery has been long sought by scientists. Its work, which appears in the journal Physical Review Letters, centers on predicting "cosmological signatures" for models of dark matter with a mass between that of the electron and the proton. Previous methods had predicted similar signatures for simpler models of dark matter. This research establishes new ways to find these signatures in more complex models, which experiments continue to search for, the paper's authors note.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/07/220706133253.htm

Below is the Fill Open Access Peer reviewed Journal:

Joint Cosmic Microwave Background and Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Constraints on Light Dark Sectors with Dark Radiation: https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.021302

@L.A.T.1961 THOUGHT you may be interested in this also!

I very much appreciate your contribution, my friend, but dark matter fails the razor test on several parameters. First off it adds a huge quantity of undetectable matter, that can only be indirectly observed through intricate hypothesised methods, and second of all it demands too many wildcard factors to incorporate in Relativity and predict outcomes.

Mond is just an updated math solution, that works excellently with Relativity, and easily predicts outcomes. It slips below the razor with no issues. Just because a hypothesis is consensus favored, it doesn't mean it's right. Once the consensus was that space-time was ether and that only the Milky Way galaxy existed. See how that turned out.

Edited by zep73
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, zep73 said:

I very much appreciate your contribution, my friend, but dark matter fails the razor test on several parameters. First off it adds a huge quantity of undetectable matter, that can only be indirectly observed through intricate hypothesised methods, and second of all it demands too many wildcard factors to incorporate in Relativity and predict outcomes.

Mond is just an updated math solution, that works excellently with Relativity, and easily predicts outcomes. It slips below the razor with no issues. Just because a hypothesis is consensus favored, it doesn't mean it's right. Once the consensus was that space-time was ether and that only the Milky Way galaxy existed. See how that turned out.

First let me thank you for your kind words I always try to help! Well I am not certain it actually does and neither did Einstein or the Current Scientific Community so I am unwilling to discard it yet. While I am certainly not an expert in this area, I have done some serious reading on the subject and below  what I have discovered and what I believe, if you have something that’s more accurate please send me a link!

Dark matter as the Bose–Einstein condensation in loop quantum cosmology published 2016:   https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4182-x

Continuous Bose–Einstein condensation published July 08 2022: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04731-z

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Dark Matter" sounds prejudicial against those having cosmopolitan origins. Perhaps, they should refer to it as "Matter of which emits no rays of illumination". That way, nobody's feelings should get hurt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

First let me thank you for your kind words I always try to help! Well I am not certain it actually does and neither did Einstein or the Current Scientific Community so I am unwilling to discard it yet. While I am certainly not an expert in this area, I have done some serious reading on the subject and below  what I have discovered and what I believe, if you have something that’s more accurate please send me a link!

Dark matter as the Bose–Einstein condensation in loop quantum cosmology published 2016:   https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4182-x

Continuous Bose–Einstein condensation published July 08 2022: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04731-z

It's on my to-do list. (Got enough on it to last 100 years...)

The community certainly isn't happy about Newtonian solutions in astrophysics, so the skepticism is big. They keep pointing to the Bullet Cluster. But what if they're interpreting the Bullet Cluster wrongly?  If a solution is perfect in any other way, except for one single observation, maybe the observation needs to be re-examined?

Well, enough of this. The community has discarded this, so Banik's attempt to solve gravity with Mond has failed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider MOND to be, what is sometimes describes as, an elegant solution. Unfortunately it needs to be more than elegant to do the job. 

Which is a shame. 

I notice Indranil Banik and others have also looked at explaining why some measurements seems to suggest MOND does not work and why that might be the wrong conclusion.

"We present hydrodynamical star-forming simulations in the Milgromian dynamics (MOND) framework of a gas-rich disc galaxy with properties similar to AGC 114905, which has recently been argued to have a rotation curve (RC) that is inconsistent with the MOND prediction."

https://risweb.st-andrews.ac.uk/portal/en/researchoutput/overestimated-inclinations-of-milgromian-disc-galaxies(cf5c97ca-2c5a-4a94-8c08-4b37f8f6012e).html 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 7/11/2022 at 6:15 PM, UM-Bot said:

What if it was possible to explain the movement of stars and galaxies without relying on dark matter to fill the gaps ?

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/359063/new-theory-of-gravity-could-remove-need-for-dark-matter

It took years to detect the first neutrinos due to their incredibly small size meaning they would rarely hit an atom.

One possibility is there are other particles like neutrinos, but they are so small a collision with an atom is extremely rare. Meaning they would be almost impossible to detect.

We dont need WIMPs, we just need huge quantities of particles really small, way smaller than the electron, way smaller than the neutrino.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just the space between the pixels, this proves the simulation theory, which will now be a law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I have a rhetorical question...what are Time, Distance and Velocity relative to?

They are all relative to static points created by the human mind.  In reality, there are no static points because everything is always constantly in motion, constantly changing.

I think all of our calculations therefore will always be somewhat skewed because everything is measured from static points that don't actually exist.  

thank you

Edited by joc
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.