Dark Matter May Not Exist: These Physicists Favor of a New Theory of Gravity

Spiral Galaxy Spin

Dark matter was proposed to explain why stars at a galaxy’s far edge were able to move much faster than predicted with Newton. An alternative theory of gravity might be a better explanation.

Using Newton’s laws of physics, we can model the motions of planets in the Solar System quite accurately. However, in the early 1970s, scientists discovered that this didn’t work for disc galaxies – stars at their outer edges, far from the gravitational force of all the matter at their center – were moving much faster than predicted by Newton’s theory.

As a result, physicists proposed that an invisible substance called “dark matter” was providing extra gravitational pull, causing the stars to speed up – a theory that’s become widely accepted. However, in a recent review my colleagues and I suggest that observations across a vast range of scales are much better explained in an alternative theory of gravity called Milgromian dynamics or Mond – requiring no invisible matter. It was first proposed by Israeli physicist Mordehai Milgrom in 1982.

Mond’s primary postulate is that when gravity becomes very weak, as it does near the edge of galaxies, it starts behaving differently from Newtonian physics. In this way, it is possible to explain why stars, planets, and gas in the outskirts of over 150 galaxies rotate faster than expected based on just their visible mass. However, Mond doesn’t merely explain such rotation curves, in many cases, it predicts them.

Philosophers of science have argued that this power of prediction makes Mond superior to the standard cosmological model, which proposes there is more dark matter in the universe than visible matter. This is because, according to this model, galaxies have a highly uncertain amount of dark matter that depends on details of how the galaxy formed – which we don’t always know. This makes it impossible to predict how quickly galaxies should rotate. But such predictions are routinely made with Mond, and so far these have been confirmed.

Imagine that we know the distribution of visible mass in a galaxy but do not yet know its rotation speed. In the standard cosmological model, it would only be possible to say with some confidence that the rotation speed will come out between 100km/s and 300km/s on the outskirts. Mond makes a more definite prediction that the rotation speed must be in the range 180-190km/s.

If observations later reveal a rotation speed of 188km/s, then this is consistent with both theories – but clearly, Mond is preferred. This is a modern version of Occam’s razor – that the simplest solution is preferable to more complex ones, in this case that we should explain observations with as few “free parameters” as possible. Free parameters are constants – certain numbers that we must plug into equations to make them work. But they are not given by the theory itself – there’s no reason they should have any particular value – so we have to measure them observationally. An example is the gravitation constant, G, in Newton’s gravity theory or the amount of dark matter in galaxies within the standard cosmological model.

We introduced a concept known as “theoretical flexibility” to capture the underlying idea of Occam’s razor that a theory with more free parameters is consistent with a wider range of data – making it more complex. In our review, we used this concept when testing the standard cosmological model and Mond against various astronomical observations, such as the rotation of galaxies and the motions within galaxy clusters.

Each time, we gave a theoretical flexibility score between –2 and +2. A score of –2 indicates that a model makes a clear, precise prediction without peeking at the data. Conversely, +2 implies “anything goes” – theorists would have been able to fit almost any plausible observational result (because there are so many free parameters). We also rated how well each model matches the observations, with +2 indicating excellent agreement and –2 reserved for observations that clearly show the theory is wrong. We then subtract the theoretical flexibility score from that for the agreement with observations, since matching the data well is good – but being able to fit anything is bad.

A good theory would make clear predictions that are later confirmed, ideally getting a combined score of +4 in many different tests (+2 -(-2) = +4). A bad theory would get a score between 0 and -4 (-2 -(+2)= -4). Precise predictions would fail in this case – these are unlikely to work with the wrong physics.

We found an average score for the standard cosmological model of –0.25 across 32 tests, while Mond achieved an average of +1.69 across 29 tests. The scores for each theory in many different tests are shown in figures 1 and 2 below for the standard cosmological model and Mond, respectively.

Comparison of Standard Cosmological Model With Observations

Figure 1. Comparison of the standard cosmological model with observations based on how well the data matches the theory (improving bottom to top) and how much flexibility it had in the fit (rising left to right). The hollow circle is not counted in our assessment, as that data was used to set free parameters. Reproduced from table 3 of our review. Credit: Arxiv

Comparison of Standard Cosmological Model With Observations Mond

Figure 2. Similar to Figure 1, but for Mond with hypothetical particles that only interact via gravity called sterile neutrinos. Notice the lack of clear falsifications. Reproduced from Table 4 of our review. Credit: Arxiv

It is immediately apparent that no major problems were identified for Mond, which at least plausibly agrees with all the data (notice that the bottom two rows denoting falsifications are blank in figure 2).

The problems with dark matter

One of the most striking failures of the standard cosmological model relates to “galaxy bars” – rod-shaped bright regions made of stars – that spiral galaxies often have in their central regions (see lead image). The bars rotate over time. If galaxies were embedded in massive halos of dark matter, their bars would slow down. However, most, if not all, observed galaxy bars are fast. This falsifies the standard cosmological model with very high confidence.

Another problem is that the original models that suggested galaxies have dark matter halos made a big mistake – they assumed that the dark matter particles provided gravity to the matter around it, but were not affected by the gravitational pull of the normal matter. This simplified the calculations, but it doesn’t reflect reality. When this was taken into account in subsequent simulations it was clear that dark matter halos around galaxies do not reliably explain their properties.

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. It could also be due to people’s reluctance to tweak a gravity theory that has been so successful in many other areas of physics.

The huge lead of Mond over the standard cosmological model in our study led us to conclude that Mond is strongly favored by the available observations. While we do not claim that Mond is perfect, we still think it gets the big picture correct – galaxies really do lack dark matter.

Written by Indranil Banik, Postdoctoral Research Fellow of Astrophysics, University of St Andrews.

This article was first published in The Conversation.The Conversation

Reference: ” From Galactic Bars to the Hubble Tension: Weighing Up the Astrophysical Evidence for Milgromian Gravity
by Indranil Banik and Hongsheng Zhao, 27 June 2022, Symmetry.
DOI: 10.3390/sym14071331

40 Comments on "Dark Matter May Not Exist: These Physicists Favor of a New Theory of Gravity"

  1. Why would anyone want to completely forget about 95% of the mass of the universe? Space is absolute zero except for the radiation that flows throughout the galaxies which makes it a few degrees hotter. What is causing the cold? Nothing? Obviously, matter causes the cold in space just like matter causes the cold in our atmosphere. Its just that the field is made of particles that are too small to be seen.

    The only reason science talks about dark matter is because the outer solar systems are going much faster than they should. The reason for this excess speed has nothing to do with the extra gravity dark matter should produce. Our galaxy wasn’t formed out of gas and dust, it was created from a single mass of quark plasma which is what black holes are made of. This plasma is optically invisible and can make shapes. Our galaxy was spinning when it was born as shrapnel from a massive collision that happened 13.8 billion years ago. Two objects that contained the mass of the observable galaxies collided and created quark plasma shrapnel that are the expanding galaxies we see to this day. The energy from the collision is why they are expanding. It is merely momentum, not “dark energy”, that is making them expand. This created an anisotropic expansion of matter that will appear to be an accelerating expanding universe if it is assumed the universe is expanding. The Big Bang happened in an already existing, static universe with everything already here. That is how the laws of physics are applied to the event that was the “Big Bang”. Currently, none are followed at all which led to this article being created.

    Our galaxy was spinning as a result of the collision. If it wasn’t, it would create an irregular or elliptical galaxy. The quark plasma used centrifugal force to create a disk with a bulbous center. The center eventually separated from the disk and created our black hole. The remaining quark plasma disk was left to create all the solar systems. The solar systems were created exactly like our galaxy. Even the planets and their corresponding moons and rings were formed the same way.

    This is why the outer solar systems are going so fast. The galaxy was a single mass initially so the outer solar systems were going fast just like the outer section of a record on a record player goes fast. This initial disk is what gave the outer solar systems their speed, not the gravitational effects of dark matter. It is only because the Big Bang theory states a cloud of gas and dust must use gravity to become a star that science is unable to understand what 95% of the mass of our universe is made of or for. It was the collision 13.8 billion years ago that caused the energy we see, not gravity. It is the manipulation of dark matter that causes gravity just like Einstein stated. If there was no dark matter, there would be no gravity and there would be no humans.

    All the problems that have always been brought up for the last several decades are due to the Big Bang theory. I just explained the observations that Vera Rubin found. I just explained that it is the 95% of the mass of our universe that causes gravity that scientists want to ignore. I just explained what black holes are. I did all this because I gave up on the Big Bang theory 20 years ago and applied all the laws to the expanding galaxies that Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929. He didn’t discover an expanding universe and he and many of his peers never wanted anything to do with Georges Lamaitres expanding universe theory because of the massive problems it would create. Obviously, they were exactly right.

    • “Matter causes cold”? Dude, crack open a basic physics book and learn the definitions before you embarrass yourself with a treatise to idiocy like what you wrote above.

      • Can you read?
        “The baseline temperature of outer space, as set by the background radiation from the Big Bang, is 2.7255 kelvins (−270.4245 °C; −454.7641 °F) +/-0.002 K.”

        What are you? The “ultimate arguer of nothing”?

  2. What about comparison with Einstein’s theory? How does Mond’s model compare to the General Relativity?

    • GTR actually treats gravity as a distortion in spacetime caused by mass, unlike Newtonian gravity that treats it as a force. In MOND, Milgrom hypothesized that effects of Newtonian gravity on an object are modified by the acceleration of the object. The hypothesis states that our current understanding of Newtonian gravity are based on a high acceleration environment, and Milgrom modified the Newtonian equations to account for low acceleration environments.

      If this pans out, GTR could potentially be modified to come to a similar conclusion, that the distortion in spacetime is impacted by the acceleration. After all, GTR does postulate that one of the four dimensions (time) is affected by acceleration.

      • Where did everything come from 13.8 billion years ago? Your “singularity”? Why don’t you crack open a physics book and look up the first law of thermodynamics. Then, look up the second law and tell me how a cloud of gas and dust becomes a star that lasts for 5 billion years. You’re making Georges Lamaitre proud.

  3. Gayland Andrew Machala | July 11, 2022 at 6:13 am | Reply

    How does the author explain the “Bullet Galaxies” that left their matter behind in a collision and the dark matter kept on going? How does it explain the galaxies with very little dark matter? It is possible to insert new parameters and tweak them to make any theory work, but it has to explain everything, not just selected examples. You might as well propose that physical laws are different in different places.

    • Good questions, but the dark matter hypothesis can’t explain those either, right? If the bullet cluster collision left the visible matter in place and the dark matter continued on its way, why do we not see the visible matter being gravitationally attracted to the dark matter that is speeding away? If dark matter has the habit of abandoning visible matter, there should be much more of these events, shouldn’t there? I mean, most large spirals like Milkyway and Andromeda are formed through numerous collisions – so why/how does the dark matter from the smaller galaxies integrate itself in to the halo without running away? How are the spirals in Bullet cluster still holding their shapes?

      So far the only way to “detect” dark matter is to take GTR as an absolute incontrovertible fact, find areas of space where it fails, and invent invisible, undetectable mass to explain the failure.

      MOND isn’t perfect either, but not having to accept an “undetectable ether with mass” attracts me to it (pun intended).

  4. Humans know very little about anything in physics as all measurements made are from phenomenon that are emergent. Gravity is but one such measurement.

    • Oh wow… So have you attained enlightenment yet, or are you still sitting under a Bodhi tree with your laptop?

      • Why don’t you look up “, unsolved physics problems”. Quit acting like you know everything. You know nothing.

  5. IMHO, Dark Matter is just a side-effect caused by Dark Energy (which is the real mystery)!
    As an analogy, consider growing/inflating pockets of gas in rising dough!
    (Imagine spacetime as a bubbling/boiling (because of incoming DE!) superfluid!)
    (So the locations in space w/ “lots of DM” are actually just where spacetime superfluid is denser!)
    As for evidence:
    Isn’t it true that geometric structure of Cosmic Web looks really like bubbling (instead of collapsing!)? (So it has positive curvature instead of negative!?)
    Isn’t it true that some galaxies appear to have too much DM & so others too little (contrary to all expectations!)?
    (& not to mention, no experiment/observation is ever able to find any new particle which could be what DM is made of!)

    • Can you give me the number of your guy? Because I think my guy has been holding out on the good stuff. I’ve got to get some of what you are smoking.

  6. Charles G. Shaver | July 11, 2022 at 12:00 pm | Reply

    Unfamiliar with Mordehai Milgrom and Milgromian dynamics (Mond) until reading this article today, with the requisite math well beyond my formal education level, I believe I can both add some credibility to the theory of Milgromian gravity and additional explanation as to how it works. As I’ve tried to demonstrate and explain beginning with my own “1Gravity” video from 2012 now on Odysee dot com, gravity is induced in all objects by some higher form of oscillating or pulsating energy to coil and spiral outward in fields of coherent directional lines of force which attract perpendicular to their length, as with magnetic lines of force around wire conductors with an electrical current flowing through them. As to the higher angular velocity of stars rotating faster at the edge of a disk galaxy, those would appear to be combined functions of a less dense field of the central black hole’s gravity and the increased effect of the combined gravity of all of the stars closer to the edge.

    • You should have stopped at “well beyond my formal education level”, because that’s pretty apparent from the rest of your post.

      “Higher form of energy”? Dude, just call it magic and be done with it.

      • Charles G. Shaver | July 12, 2022 at 9:46 am | Reply

        Hello again, TheHeck, an interesting conversation, with a physicist it seems. However, you are beginning to strike me like Mike Pollock strikes you. Prove me wrong that, perhaps, reverberations of the big bang in a kind of cosmic bubble are that which induces gravity to radiate from all solid objects like an electric coil can induce an invisible magnetic field in an iron nail, and/or that rotation of an object increases its gravity.

    • “What causes the cold? Nothing?”
      The guy who called you about this, The Heck, was right, matter causes heat.
      Please tell me how matter’causes cold?’
      See if you can do it without any sarcastic slur included in your answer, it isn’t like I care all that much but most of your previous replies have been vulgar and a trifle pugnacious which is never a good look for someone who’s trying to get taken seriously talking theoretical physics and cosmology.

  7. Charles C OKeefe | July 11, 2022 at 8:32 pm | Reply

    Is Dark Energy a vector force within our universe acting in every particle causing it to Accelerate?
    Accelerate particles away from each other straight towards the universe boundary.
    What is the chance a vector force is behaving uniformly and its Dark Energy, something unseen, etc.

    Nah, i think the universe is accelerating or being pulled in acceleration towards the universe edge by whatever substance is beyond our universe edge.

    Like when we observe a small object accelerate towards a larger object.

    So how much matter, weight is needed outside the universe to effect the cosmological constant.

    • Aren’t you simply moving the problem to “beyond the edge of the universe”? To have a uniform acceleration that is the same in every direction, you need to have a an extremely well distributed homogeneous attractor that has a 5-6 of orders of magnitude more mass than the entire observable universe. Whouldn’t that simply collapse on itself? What’s keeping it fixed? This is where you would have to resort to magic. I’d stick with physics.

      • Where is your “magic” that is making the galaxies accelerate in their expansion? Space? A jet engine?
        How do you not see that you just contradicted yourself in your comment? What the heck are you thinking? Again, crack out your physics book and look up Newton’s third law of motion. You obviously don’t understand that either.

  8. Dark matter and dark energy are the 21st century equivalent of the ether. A new theory of gravity will eventually eliminate these dinosaurs.

    • I fully agree. Whenever a theory has to be propped up by “invisible, undetectable somekindastuff”, it’s time to look for a replacement.

  9. Hello, my name is Marcelo Jubilado Catharino, I studied everything that caused me chaos when I was in depression, so I understood how necessary it is for us to teach other humans to move in agreement with each other. But I don’t like the spotlight and high social status due to my living being satisfying with everyone I love, so I see that my greatest achievement has been living my life. This one that makes me understand and realize how necessary it is for me to remain with the achievements that I have already conquered, thus, I add the necessary values ​​according to the need of my own surroundings to live better in society. Because of this way of looking at life, I created 2 theories, a theory of 2 atoms in quantum motion in infinite singularity towards itself and in any direction. The other theory of 1 atom moving in singularity where we have the clock (time is the marking of the propagation of energy), zodiac symbols, star of David and other theories of the movement of itself. I explain both theories in my books _Chaos from the past being vivid in the future_ (quantum explanation) and _freedom within chaos_ (philosophy). Within these two theories, all theories fit, from Platonic archetypes, Fibonacci, time crystal (atoms being compressed until they are in singularity), quantum Darwinism, Tesla, Einstein, Socrates, all forms of religious capture and everything that contains movement. . In my theory I say that everything that contains matter, physics and everything that exists contains life. Soon I realize that the difference between us humans and anything that exists is to be able to interpret death, because everything that exists goes through chaos to adapt, within this chaotic adaptation contains “records” of DNA, gravity, forces, physics, quantum physics and all energies existing in the universe. When the beginning of the universe occurred, its origin had a great release of energy and that energy came from a great initial movement, what is the value of this initial movement and how long does it take for it to adapt? I soon see that that initial movement is the movement that controls the entire universe in adapting and staying in singularity. How much chaos is in the universe? Within these adaptation movements, what is the most powerful energy? universe, galaxy, solar system, earth or humans… Who needs to adapt, we humans or the universe adapt to us humans?

  10. Has anyone looked at the possibility that gravity may be affected by the shape of either the matter in a particular galaxy (type of galaxy) or perhaps even the black hole itself?

    For instance, what if it’s more or less circular or elliptical or even on-axis to the accretion disc versus off-axis?

    In other words, if “gravity” (perhaps the least understood ‘force’ in the Universe) is based on distortion of space-time as GTR posits then the shape of that distortion could be extremely important in a multi-dimensional sense.

    The Universe itself is supposedly more of a flat shape than a spherical one, making inflation theories of the Universe from a supposed Big Bang rather odd to imagine. The notion the Universe itself is in a sense violating the speed of light limitation (inflating space-time faster than light can travel by far with the Universe being 13-18 billion years old or thereabouts but the *visible* universe estimated at over 96 billion light-years). So either space-time expansion is a travel method we should seriously look into to get around the SoL or something has gone off the proverbial rails in the BBT.

    Of course, if the BBT is nonsense based on purely on relatively localized red shift (the *visible* universe thing) and in reality the Universe has sometimes colliding boundaries with other universes that result in localized cosmic behavior merely *resembling* a big bang once every few dozen billion years or something, well many of those well worn assumptions could go right out the window, let alone if there could be overlapping dimensions that could be inhabited for all we know that we can’t even normally detect (Einstein-Rosenberg bridge) or aka the TV show we called Sliders.

    Could these dimensions interact somehow at certain “touching” spatial locations (Who else has been watching Skinwalker Ranch?) and could such anomalies affect the overall shape of space-time in such a way that they’re only interacting at these particular locations, making some areas of space more distorted than others on a large scale?

    Yeah, it’s nuts. But is it really any more nuts than inventing a math kludge/fudge called Dark Matter or Dark Energy to explain why your poorly realized model of gravity doesn’t match observational reality or why the universe appears to be accelerating for similar unexplained reasons? I’d say no. But I postulate scientists are just as closed minded these days as any religion.

    Science had its own invented bogeymen akin to “God” as an explanation and “scientists” that are just as ego driven, narcissistic and rude as any priest or pastor on this planet. True Science doesn’t judge, but human scientists sure as heck do. Look at Forbidden Archeology as an example. You can’t have open discussion when one side is laughing on the floor at the other while still hiding away evidence that doesn’t match their own narratives. Protect the status quo at all costs! Religion does that a lot too.

    It seems “canceling” other views really isn’t all that new a thing, whether it be the Catholic Church or Climatologists.

    The majority always attacks, demean and ultimately seeks to destroy any other hypothesis to something like the Big Bang. It’s why Dark Matter exists as a postulate and simultaneously why it’s such a bleeping waste of decades and lives looking for something that doesn’t exist just to fudge an imperfect theory of the Universe rather than seek an alternative model that actually works.

  11. William A. Masters | July 14, 2022 at 2:25 pm | Reply

    Space is a fabric, which has density. As Max Planke noted, gravity pulls at and stretches this fabric. The main mass of a galaxy pulls inward on the space at the edges lessening the density of that outter space lowering its density. This allows masses in this low density space to travel faster due to less space drag. We see the same result near to massive bodies. Near the sun space is less dense so Mercury travels faster near the sun than farther from the sun. Newton did not know this. Then it was believed that space was a vacuum. As late as the 1960s Einstein was still arguing against the vacuum modle of space. When you factor in Space-time density to Newtons gravitational formula, it predicts the precision of Mercury and the outter galaxy planets. Just as planes fly faster in thinner upper altitude air, so do planets in less dense space. Space is not uniform in density.

    • “What causes the cold? Nothing?”
      The guy who called you about this, The Heck, was right, matter causes heat.
      Please tell me how matter’causes cold?’
      See if you can do it without any sarcastic slur included in your answer, it isn’t like I care all that much but most of your previous replies have been vulgar and a trifle pugnacious which is never a good look for someone who’s trying to get taken seriously talking theoretical physics and cosmology.

  12. Can it just be as simple as:
    We see only active accretion disk black holes.
    But as humans take breakes between meals,
    We have no way to see, even huge black holes, if the ate the saraunding, and until they get close inough, to matter, they are invisible..
    And small ones too

  13. I’ve recently put forward a modified gravity hypothesis that explains galactic rotation rates and also cosmological expansion without the need of dark matter or dark energy.
    This hypothesis also includes an adaptation of general relativity that explains time dilation and energy increase at relativistic velocities and within a gravity well, while retaining Euclidean space.

    Part of this hypothesis includes the idea that higher concentrations of neutrinos may inhibit quantum processes. Please take a look at my paper and comment if you deem it appropriate.

    Copies may be downloaded here:


  14. Scott Anderson | July 16, 2022 at 3:20 pm | Reply

    Mond only accounts for cosmological discrepancies. The entire physics community needs to come to terms with some facts: if the equations are missing the majority of mass and energy in the Universe you have no choice but to accept the foundations are cracked which leads to a chasm as we extrapolate, the original theories are wrong no matter how close it looks at the smallest scale they do not give the proper results. The original theories have mistakes in them, something we consider fundamental is incorrect… never fear it is fixable, the “vacuum” is abstract there has never been a perfect vacuum all attempts structurally fail meaning all reference to a vacuum in the originals is without grounding in reality, no zero point, no speed of light in a vacuum, no permeability of free space, no vacuum fluctuations, all of it abstract. We have never separated matter from light or energy, there has never been an observed space with zero mass and only light or only energy. All particles are atomic impact proxies only without a perfect vacuum everything happening between those collider detectors is atomic, the medium is atomic not aether or sub. We can fix this easy peasy lemon squeezy

  15. Why cant Entropy and force of expansion be not the useless energy state where potentials have been exhausted. But entropy be the base non configured manifestible development, the basis energy turns from, then to distropy? Apply fluid dynamics to reconfigurational protocols, and allow ∆m=E/c²∆A∆x
    There is either near infinite or near zero infinite potential simultaneously existing within dimensional space in any one event or location. If such is applied as though near thermofluid dynamics in potentials? Entropic distribution field. Through to Distropic radiation?

  16. Noriaki Namba | July 23, 2022 at 6:09 pm | Reply

    I pointed out the flaws in MOND theory in my paper* published in 2002.

    “Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) ha srecently been the focus of much attention/. MOND, developed by M. Milgrom, proposes a revision of Newton’s second law of motion in order to explain. Flat rotation curves of galaxies. Milgrom claims that because the second low of motion only applicable in cases of high acceleration-such as with the planets in the solar system-the law is not applicable in cases of extremely low acceleration-such as with stars in their galaxies.・・・
    However, MOND is designed only to explain flat rotation curves of galaxies and does not seem to have any other theoretical necessity. Thus why does Newton’s second law of motion need to be revised in cases of extremely low acceleration? Is there any reason other than to make the law match what has been observed? The cores of rich X-ray clusters of galaxies show a considerable mass discrepancy. Yet the MOND theory does not explain this well. Why? Because the acceleration of galaxy cores is not low. This phenomenon, however, can be explained without contradiction using inertial induction-the effect of inertial induction is strongly apparent due to the high density of the cores.”

    *N. Namba, “Stellar movement in the galaxy explained by inertial induction”, Phys. Essays 15, 156(2002)

    In addition, I mentioned the essence of gravity and inertia in a 2014 paper, showing that the existing theory of gravity is incomplete.
    The full text of this paper is now available on GALE ACADEMIC ONE FILE.
    Please see attached.


  17. May it be that dark matter is an illusion produced by the blurred gravitational force of regular matter in state of quantum uncertainty?

    I.e. when e.g. the same galaxy exists in many parallel universes in slightly different states, but the gravitational force of all those versions of the galaxy superimpose and mix to a blurred intermediated field of gravity (like a double-exposed photograph of many variants of the same object), the interaction may make it look like presence of additional gravity from “dark” (undetectable) matter. Regarding that increased gravity also slows down time for matter inside of it, this all together may have an accumulating effect (kind of feedback) on the spacetime within and around galaxies those make them spin like observed and possibly even affect their shape (forms galaxy arms etc.), without existence of additional “dark matter” particles. Because matter (stars etc.) on the outside of a galaxy moves faster than closer to its center, it may be that the faster motion increases the effect of their gravitational force leaking through to adjacent parallel universe versions of it, and the caused time dilation changes position of matter it a way that smears the resulting additional gravity such that it behaves like dark matter.

  18. I think it’s a little unfair that there is no theoretically justification for Mond. Milgroms original paper is not just an ad hoc modification…although it has a free parameter, it has some mathematical justification from statistical physics and the way forces transmit in solid state physics. Second Verlindes theory of entropic gravity fixes the weak accelerations at 10^-10 m/s2. Although Verlindes theory is not favored to be right or sufficiently detailed at its core, some aspects of it regarding the correlation of thermodynamics and gravity are now considered well justified. Sadly we’ve spent billions on dark matter searches, where probably only a few millions could have looked at the weak acceleration regime decades ago with decades old technology. We’ve only started to pride these low acceleration regions of gravity as of last year.

  19. What if in the middle of each galaxy there is a giant vagina sucking everything in?

  20. Seriously, are you ok? Or should I call someone who can take you to a psychiatrist?

  21. I’m just reading Markus Chow’s book “Ascent of Gravity” where he explains that Einstein realised that the reason for the anomaly in Mercury’s orbit was that being so close to the Sun meant that the huge energy of space-time exerted it’s own additional gravitational force there.

    Would that same additional force not be present in huge quantities around black holes at the centre of galaxies and explain the additional attraction required to rule out the need
    to have “dark matter” to account for the missing gravitational pull?

Leave a comment

Email address is optional. If provided, your email will not be published or shared.