Dark matter

Maybe there is no need for dark energy and dark matter. Merely an illusion.

Quote from the following paper:

"From the simple assumption that the observers located inside the Universe measure a time flow such that the Universe always appears flat to them, we derive a cosmological model which allows to explain the velocity dispersion of galaxies in clusters without introducing any dark matter, as well as to explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe without any dark energy. It also solves the flatness and horizon problems without any need for inflation. Moreover, our model predicts a higher age of the Universe, i.e. between 15.4 and 16.5 Gyr, depending on the actual value of the matter-energy density. This higher age allows to relax the tight constraints on the formation of stars and galaxies, since the age of the oldest of these objects is estimated to be over 13 Gyr, which is uncomfortably close to the 13.7 Gyr obtained from the standard CDM cosmological model."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.1110v2.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

From the above:

In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level.[1] Instead, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe. Dark matter is estimated to constitute 84% of the matter in the universe and 23% of the total energy density (with almost all the rest being dark energy).[2]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It would still be emitting thermal energy, it would just be the same temperature as the background. However, the very fine dust would still partly block light coming from a distant object, passing through the dust on the way to us. Besides, Carbon must be made within the core of a star and so very little of the matter in the universe is anything other than Hydrogen and Helium.

Because all too often "God did it" is wheeled out by ignorant believes when they cannot provide a justified answer and they do not want to admit it.

Fine, sit on the fence but that means disbelief in all possible explanations until such time as evidence is provided for one of them. The fact you think your belief in your god is a 'sitting on the fence' position shows how warped your perspective is.

There is no justified evidence for a god. The case for dark matter, which you call flimsy and thus do not accept, is much much stronger than the case for your god. As such you should respond in the same way, just as a rational person would do when asked "Do you believe in Bigfoot", the default position is to say "I do not believe the claim, there is insufficient evidence at present". This is different from saying "The claim is false". The fact you don't apply the same reasoning to your god shows you have an internally inconsistent reasoning methodology. If you weren't aware of it before then you are now. If you do not change your reasoning method somehow, to remove this inconsistency, then you're knowingly irrational.

The paper doesn't address other dark matter related phenomena, such as the Bullet Cluster, so it has not yet shown we can bin the dark matter concept. Furthermore the attempted explanation of galaxy rotation curves is highly suspect. Do they really think no one has considered whether it is just a time dilation effect? Their explanation comes from special relativity! They construct a formula, Equation (9), but do not show it works. The formula gives a speed modification factor of \(\frac{\delta \tau_{2}}{\delta \tau_{1}}\) but for galaxy based velocities this is very very close to 1, when it needs to be O(10). They say "It may explain...." but then make some half arsed arm wavy comment about galaxy velocity dispersion in clusters. Sorry, doesn't cut it, not just on grounds of lack of exposition but the formulae just don't say what they need them to say.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But the following paper is a real solution to the problem of dark matter and dark energy. It explains the nature and origin of dark matter:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.0868v3.pdf

 

My answer to this post you quoted.

 

Something never seen.

 

I didn’t catch that, but their reasoning for the “Tired Time” they have applied to Billions of year, or light years at a cosmological scale could have no effect at the localized scale of a galaxy anyway. As well, if what you say is true, that they use Velocity based Time Dilation to resolve the Galaxy rotation problem using SR, there are two major flaws. One, the effects of the Time Dilation, as you properly stated, would not be enough, even at the fastest orbital speeds we observe in galaxies. The Blue stars orbiting the central mass of Andromeda, are clocked at around 1000 km/s, which is only 1/300th the speed of light. That’s not fast enough to make much effect at all. If this were enough to show an effect, the effect could not be witnessed by the third observer.

 

IMO, Bohm describes Dm in the following proposition.

Could this be the mysterious DM? Actually it would not be dark at all. It would be light at a Planck scale wavelength, so as to render it a straigt line, beyond observation. This why DM "appears" dark.

 

See reply here.