A Major Flaw Has Appeared in our Basic Model of the Universe. It's Big.

[@nolongeramused8135]

Dark matter has always been an obvious stand-in for "we totally missed something, so here's a place marker for later."

[@dirtbird7415]

Exactly , it's aptly named though , dark ( as in we are in the dark as to what we are missing ) and matter ( as in whatever it is we are missing seems to create an illusion of matter ).

[@nolongeramused8135]

@@dirtbird7415 My personal thought is that what we are missing is an accurate understanding, and the accompanying math, of how gravity works. I find ignorance to be a far cleaner, and likely, explanation than "invisible something." Not to say that we haven't learned about all sorts of invisible somethings quite by accident over the years.

[@infobeam1902]

Haha seems that way.

[@infobeam1902]

I’m also wondering why it’s so difficult to believe in nothingness…. There’s so much something so nothing is obvious. Literally existence and non existence.

[@brianofphobos8862]

Yes, but the name poisons the thinking. "We have a problem with gravity. The answer must be some form of matter." Not good thinking.

[@Rufticus]

Astrophysicist here. MOND is a good mathematical fit for rotation curves but it doesn't explain the gravitational lensing we see, nor the interactions we see in gravitational clusters like the Bullet Cluster. Furthermore, the early massive galaxy issue raised in the video has already been explained in that the Initial Mass Function (a parameter used to calculate mass during galactic evolution) in the early universe being different to that we see in today's universe which makes perfect sense given how much more dense the early universe was. Dark matter is an ugly theory, but it's still the one that fits the mathematics, the physics, and the observations we see all around us.

[@shawns0762]

Dark matter is dilated mass. Dilation is the phenomenon our high school teachers were talking about when they said "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". This doesn't mean that mass increases, it means mass becomes spread throughout spacetime relative to an outside observer. Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation. Dilation occurs wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us. The "missing mass" needed to explain galaxy rotation curves is dilated mass. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter. In other words they have normal rotation rates. All planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates for the same reason.

[@Rufticus]

@@shawns0762 An interesting hypothesis and not one I've ever come across in a peer reviewed paper to date. However, "dilated mass" is a bit of a misnomer in this context as you've presented it. (As is the infinite mass at speed of light - don't know how that one has endured so long - nothing with mass can ever reach the speed of light). The word "mass" has two meanings in special relativity: invariant mass (also called rest mass) is an invariant quantity which is the same for all observers in all reference frames, while the relativistic mass is dependent on the velocity of the observer (a very important distinction is that it's the velocity of the observer!). According to the concept of mass-energy equivalence, invariant mass is equivalent to rest energy, while relativistic mass is equivalent to relativistic energy (also referred to as the total energy). As such, the mass of objects as we know them (the rest mass) is unperturbed. Time dilation is a result of the warping of very fabric of spacetime in the immediate vicinity of mass (all mass). For instance, there is a very small but crucial time dilation effect between the surface of Earth and orbiting satellites. If we didn't correct for this time dilation, GPS systems would not work. As such, mass itself does not "dilate" nor can it ever be infinite (even in terms of relativistic mass, as opposed to rest mass). Nevertheless, the missing mass that gives rise to the theory of dark matter is a missing rest mass and as such, even the idea of relativistic mass doesn't explain away the observable behaviours we see that support the existence of dark matter. You may also be confusing the centre of high concentrations of mass (ie: a singularity at the heart of a black hole) as having no direction in 3D space, as once you pass the event horizon time and space switch roles in essence and the only direction is forward towards the singularity no matter which direction you accelerate in. In that reference frame, the classic XYZ coordinate system is meaningless.

[@ESL-O.G.]

Of course, they say that the laws of the universe were different at that time , so it would fit into someone's mathematics. I'm not buying it. Theory is clearly incomplete perhaps way off

[@shawns0762]

@@Rufticus I am an older science/physics nerd. A dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) graph illustrates the squared nature of the phenomenon, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. A time dilation graph illustrates the same phenomenon, it's not just time that gets dilated. Neil deGrasse Tyson recently spoke about this. The best way to understand the phenomenon is to imagine a spaceship traveling at a constant acceleration rate. When the ship reaches 50% light speed, as viewed from an Earthbound observer with a magically powerful telescope, it would appear normal because as the graph shows nothing has changed at that point. When the ship reaches 75% light speed it would appear fuzzy because as the graph shows relativistic effects would be noticeable at that point. When the ship reaches 99% light speed it would not be visible because every aspect of its existence would be smeared through spacetime relative to an Earthbound observer, not onto itself. This is the state of mass in our galactic center. It's not just there, it's everywhere.

[@Rufticus]

@ESL-O.G. They do not say the laws were any different at all, no. But that the Initial Mass Function (which is a numerical value for use in the calculation of the formation rate under which the mass can accumulate to form structures like galaxies) would be a higher value in the earlier universe given the much higher density of matter back then compared to know. This absolutely correlates with mathematics, physics, and observations.

[@axle.student]

I think the common theme here is that no one really understands why we have gravity in the first place. Beyond that is is just observational conjecture.

[@axle.student]

@@jefferyforkum380 "The cause of gravity is the same effect as what causes the strong nuclear force, ..." I suspect this is along the correct pathway. The space-time part is still an ambiguous concept in it. To talk about a curved human rule (measuring system) as distance actual, or time, a clock measuring device as physical leads to all sorts of problems. Are distances and time measurement physical phenomena that the universe is built upon? I would have difficulty with "Yes" as an answer to that. But we do have the concept of a void, and EM fields within that (a little like the old Aether) so if it is the fields that those particles are riding in that are bending then I would be comfortable with that bending, warping, stretching but not space-time (distance/time). > So, until this ambiguity at the core of relativity is weeded out, the concept of gravity (what I would be inclined to call emergent) is going to continue to be undefined :)

[@familyshare3724]

Lossy data compression

[@axle.student]

@@familyshare3724 No data compression just analog :) Analog always has uncertainty and can never be reproduced exactly the same. Close but never exact.

[@colinmacvicar2507]

The more we learn the more we realize how much there is more to learn.

[@deadiemeyers1661]

My great grandson in his first semester of college, Physics 101, chapter 1, “Dark Matter: What the heck were they thinking?!?!”

[@bruceolga3644]

Dark matter is antimatter...the black goo, which is outer space; ewe cliché clone huemans programmed backwards should be somewhat aware 👁️

[@yaff1851]

As a physicist, not an astrophysicist, I just can’t help comparing aether wind and dark matter: The theory that fits the math keeps getting uglier and uglier - until someone comes up with a wonderful new idea.

[@NYN_000]

We know nothing about the Universe! We are in overconfidence!

[@Bigracks526]

True the more we know the more we don’t know

[@bruceolga3644]

Ewe cliché clone huemans programmed backwards should be somewhat aware 👁️

[@cykkm]

I don't know whom you call "we", but overconfidence is very non-typical of scientists. And yeah, the more we know, the more we don't. So what? Knowing everything would have been boring to death.

[@bruceolga3644]

@@cykkm ewe cliché clone zombi parroting thirsty spoon-fed hollow huemans programmed backwards are boring on repeat..... fake faux real fr 👁️

[@tykeandjonsieshow3595]

And you're are incredibly ignorant. Overconfidence is the last term that would ever be applied or considered accurate for scientists and astrophysicists. Sit down and shut up. They're the experts, not you. Educate yourself.

[@douglasstrother6584]

In any discussion of Unified Theories, Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces are taken as the four fundamental forces of nature; the first two are part of our everyday, macroscopic experiences. It's curious that Electromagnetism has been uniquely excluded from Cosmology. It makes sense to use *all* of the tools in the toolbox. "Magnetohydrodynamics & Plasma Physics" is discussed in Chapter 10 of Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" (2nd edition). Revisiting the concepts in "Cosmical Electrodynamics" by Alfvén & Fälthammar, and "Physics of the Plasma Universe" by Peratt deserves attention, especially in light of contemporary observations from JWST and other observatories.

[@dwkach]

They find gravity is not a force....it is the effect curved space-time. That is the issue........Scientists still think as Newton and not Einstein. Eg. Newton's acts at infinite distance. Einstein's curved space-time doesn't.

[@deansmith4752]

A 'simple ' way to assess the effect of EM would be to observe behaviour of bodies around magenetars How relevant Nuclear forces will be on the cosmological scale is open to debate but i postulate that it is negligible We need better theories

[@Scion3Sevens]

um, WHAT??? Electromagnetism is a huge part of Cosmology.

[@navret1707]

There’s two methods to fix a theory: 1. Change the equation to fit the universe, or 2. Change the universe to fit the equation.

[@bruceolga3644]

Ewe huemans are cliché clones programmed backwards 👁️

[@cykkm]

3. Explain why the interpretation of the data is wrong. “The less the data fits the theory, the worse for the data".

[@infobeam1902]

If there needs to be a fix then the thought has been wrong all along. It’ll become the evolution of stupidity thereafter.

[@CPHSDC]

Don't forget, young galaxies grow up and eventually become fully grown. Did you ever think that you might be able to see a galaxy in two different places and two different times in the same sky? You should. Maybe we are overestimating the amount of matter in the universe for starters because we are counting the same thing more than once.

[@jimdenzler389]

“Dark energy… matters!” (The Bad Luck Tree)

[@bschuss1]

This is what MOND sounds to me as someone who doesn't have a clue: "Huh, those curves are not looking as expected. But if we introduce this very specific and completely arbitrary constant into our formula, we can change the curve to look exactly like that!"

[@crinolynneendymion8755]

Happens all the time and preferable to inventing an entirely new class of "matter".

[@LePenseurThinksALOT]

*Drums roll* ".....or is it ?" *Vsauce music playing*

[@auspiciouscloud8786]

Dark matter is light in transit, where it passes into another dimension (at the speed of light) and only appears when it slows down.

[@douglasstrother6584]

Postulating the existence of Dark Matter & Dark Energy but ignoring Electromagnetism reminds me of the Sydney Harris "... then a miracle occurs." cartoon.

[@davidmackie8552]

Agreed

[@Ricardofromage]

The electric universe theory makes for interesting reading, I'm not sure I fully subscribe but it is a well thought through postilation, and it has as much evidence for it as the theory of gravity does so......

[@CPHSDC]

Let's try this. Because the galaxy, in addition to rotating about its 'galactic center', is also travelling in a linear direction with acceleration, the actual gravitational center, is shifted from the center of mass of the galaxy to a point 'ahead' of it. If space is curved, and things are accelerating, momentum represents an increase in the angle of descent, with the appearance that the universe itself is expanding. Huh? Never mind. The gravitational center of a galaxy is not where we think it is based on our estimate of the center of mass.

[@Kayvoyager]

Good observation and theory 👍🍀

[@rolandcuthbert784]

The bullet cluster is not explained by MOND.

[@cykkm]

MOND has been around for 25 years, and I don't see much progress. It makes seriously wrong prediction in other cases. I don't see a problem with WIMP, however. If there really exists a particle that doesn't interact with baryonic matter except by gravity, then Nature decided so be it, I may only write it down. It's not impossible that we'll never detect this particle directly. So what? Yeah, we like direct detections, but Nature didn't oblige to keep out luck unbroken. I'm kinda indifferent to the end result, be it a superfluid of non-interacting particles or corrections to GR. But please give me these corrections. There's likely only one kind of gravity in the Universe, so the two theories is one too many. The funny thing is, if relativising MOND succeeds, it may even not happen to contradict CDM. Superfluid and a field are described mathematically in a quite similar manner. I have no idea why you mention that hot dark matter doesn't do the trick, and immediately switch to particle smashers. The LHC is the hottest place in the whole observable Universe. It's not a good idea to search for cold matter in such a hot place. And Λ is pronounced "lambda" ("b" is silent), not "el".

[@reeves5000]

James Beacham had a RI talk where he delved into the idea that our universe is inside a black hole. He had some anecdotal evidence, but what struck me was that if we use the Schwarzschild solution for the observable universe, taking into account all the dark matter and energy, the radius would be 3x that of the observable universe. Which with this news, kinda tracks. Adding extra matter into the equation would make for a much large radius than expected.

[@krumplethemal8831]

I bet the same thing will be discovered about the expansion. We dont observe space expanding. No. We look at the light given off by stars in other galaxies. We might be missing a property of light over distance might lose frequency. It says nothing about the stretching of space between us and the star light.

[@irene_renaissance]

Okay, now it's turning out to be interesting. Thank you for this episode! ✨👍🌌💯❤️

[@jerrybushman]

The speed of an orbit relative to the distance from center relies on whether the orbit is stable. If the orbit is not stable and the orbiting mass is escaping that orbit, then it isn't really an orbit. We cannot track the orbits of stars around a distant galaxy long enough to know if the orbits aren't even orbits. For example, the Milky Way takes about 250,000,000 years to rotate once. For it to rotate one degree it would take something like 700,000 years. For us to only have less than 100 years of observation we have no idea if any of those galaxies have any set orbits of stars. As for the direction galaxies are headed and whether they are moving away from each other, as they could be, they could be behaving exactly like solar systems in their infancy, galaxies in their infancy, the universe in its infancy, with orbits around a central mass that is increasing or decreasing. If dark matter is not a thing, then this idea I have could explain what we are seeing

[@profounddamas]

What about the major flaws in our world that no one want's to fix?

[@RobbieHatley]

While I understand and sympathize with the gist of what you're saying (yes, the world around us seems severely flawed), I think the first step in fixing those problems is to realized that it's not actually "the world" (the planet Earth) that's "flawed", but rather, it's human thinking (or, more accurately, the regrettable tendency of humans in recent decades to *_refrain_* from thinking). That's why our science, art, journalism, government, and society is failing. If we want to reverse that, the cure is simple (though painful and difficult): start thinking again. Training in basic scientific method, logical fallacies (and how to avoid them), and cognitive biases (and how to avoid them) would be a good starting point. Training in such skeptical-thinking techniques should be taught in schools at all levels from preschools to post-grad. They are not. Some school districts (especially in Texas) even *_prohibit_* teaching such things because they contradict Christianity. But if we don't learn *_how_* to think, most of us *_never will_* think, and our problems will continue, causing our "world" to continue to seem "flawed". But the "flaws" were always purely in us. Reading chapter 12, titled "The Fine Art Of Baloney Detection", of Carl Sagan's excellent book "The Demon Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark", and living by it, would be a good place to start. This should be required reading in schools.

[@profounddamas]

@@RobbieHatley Even if people are taught how to think they still don't know how to think. Very few humans are really capable of thinking, even the most bright people on this planet can be really biased on their thinking and don't have an open and free mind. Most of the people that say they are "free thinkers" are not. There's much much more to be said about this but people are not prepared to hear it.

[@johanfolkesson5170]

This was probably every engineer’s bet from the moment of first hearing about “dark matter”. Normally when performing empirical studies you strive to refine your model. I guess in this case the original model was just too pretty. To be fair, most physicists probably interpret “dark matter” as a placeholder for “potentially something interesting to discover”. But popular science has (until recently) treated the placeholder as a discovery in itself.

[@charlesokeefe8788]

We are in a sphere that has massiveve amount of e=mc^2 beyond the observable sphere that is pulling us apart in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the sphere. Orthogonal. We are inside the sphere and being pulled by gravity towards the edge and the sphere is expanding

[@ThomasB_N4G]

OK, please be patient. I am no physicist. But how can you challenge the existence of something that has never been proven to exist? What about them Cowboys?

[@PrasathMGM]

Overthinking is a huge problem nowadays.

[@rocoe9019]

Tictok would disagree with you on that

[@RiteGuy]

So is not thinking!

[@PrasathMGM]

@@RiteGuy Your Inference is wrong. Both extreme must be avoided, imho. Finding the middle way is the right way always.

[@Nostromo2144]

It's always made (common) sense to me and seems perfectly logical, that spiral galaxies rotate at the same rate near the centre, as they do near the edge/rim. Otherwise, all of the outer rim arms would have been stretched out far more, or the stars would have gotten out of whack, so there would be no 'arms', just rings of varying star density. Now, why they are able to do that, given the basic laws of physics, gravity and celestial mechanics is the question. And I've never liked DM as a very good or plausible answer personally.

[@ianmorris4922]

0:13;now THAT is going to be a pretty much constant scenario IF we find ourselves going forward having not destroyed ourselves yet.(Ask the monitor).

[@charlesokeefe8788]

To describe your scenario with more technical detail and mathematical framing, let's consider the universe as an evolving system of mass and energy that has undergone multiple expansion events (analogous to Big Bangs). Each of these events involves the creation and distribution of matter, forming multiple phases of expansion in a bubble-like universe. Here's the breakdown: Bubble Universe Model with Multiple Expansions 1. Observable Universe within a Bubble The universe we observe is akin to a 3-dimensional space encapsulated within a larger 4-dimensional surface, similar to how the 2-dimensional surface of a balloon expands in a higher-dimensional space. The bubble's interior represents our observable universe, and the thin surface represents the edges or limits of this universe. The expansion of the universe is governed by the Friedmann equations, derived from general relativity, which describe how the universe's scale factor a(t)a(t)a(t) evolves over time. These equations can accommodate various energy and matter densities, including those produced by prior Big Bang events. 2. Multiple Big Bangs In this model, multiple Big Bangs are discrete events that happened across different regions of spacetime, each producing immense quantities of matter. In general terms, each event adds mass-energy to the universe, and this mass then participates in the overall gravitational dynamics. If we denote the mass added by the nnn-th Big Bang as MnM_nMn​, the total mass-energy content of the observable universe can be written as a summation: Mtotal=∑n=1NMnM_{\text{total}} = \sum_{n=1}^{N} M_nMtotal​=n=1∑N​Mn​ where NNN represents the total number of discrete Big Bang events. Each MnM_nMn​ contributes to the gravitational potential felt throughout the observable universe, modifying the expansion rate. 3. Relativistic Effects Given the large-scale structure of spacetime, the geometry of the universe can be approximated as a Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric. In this framework, the expansion of the universe is dictated by the curvature of space (closed, flat, or open), and each Big Bang influences this curvature. For simplicity, assuming the universe is spatially flat, the scale factor a(t)a(t)a(t) describes the stretching of space over time. The Hubble parameter H(t)H(t)H(t) gives the rate of expansion at any given moment and depends on the total energy density, including the contributions from all prior Big Bangs: H2(t)=8πG3ρtotal(t)H^2(t) = \frac{8 \pi G}{3} ho_{\text{total}}(t)H2(t)=38πG​ρtotal​(t) where GGG is the gravitational constant, and ρtotal(t) ho_{\text{total}}(t)ρtotal​(t) is the total energy density. In this case, the energy density includes both the matter and the gravitational contributions of all the prior singularities. 4. Gravitational Influence of Prior Big Bangs While the other Big Bangs are not directly observable in our universe, their gravitational influence manifests as a repulsive force pushing outward from our observable universe toward its boundaries. This force accelerates the expansion of the universe, pulling matter and energy toward the bubble's "surface." The force behaves analogously to dark energy but does not rely on the same concept. Instead, it originates from the accumulated gravitational effects of the previous Big Bangs. This can be represented mathematically by introducing a term in the Friedmann equation that accounts for this outward force: a¨(t)=−4πG3(ρmatter(t)+3Poutward(t))a(t)\ddot{a}(t) = - \frac{4 \pi G}{3} \left( ho_{\text{matter}}(t) + 3P_{\text{outward}}(t) ight) a(t)a¨(t)=−34πG​(ρmatter​(t)+3Poutward​(t))a(t) where Poutward(t)P_{\text{outward}}(t)Poutward​(t) represents the outward pressure exerted by the residual matter from the prior singularities. 5. Cyclic Expansions and Contractions The model you propose also includes a cyclic process in which singularities from prior Big Bangs undergo periods of contraction followed by explosive expansion. This can be mathematically framed within the context of the bounce cosmology or cyclic universe models, where each expansion event is followed by a contraction. The total energy in each contraction is stored as potential energy, which is then released in a subsequent expansion: Eexplosion=Ecollapse+ΔEE_{\text{explosion}} = E_{\text{collapse}} + \Delta EEexplosion​=Ecollapse​+ΔE Here, ΔE\Delta EΔE represents additional energy gained from the contraction phase, which fuels the expansion of the universe in each new Big Bang. Summary The universe consists of multiple Big Bangs, each contributing mass-energy to the total structure. Our universe exists inside a bubble, expanding outward due to the combined gravitational effects of these prior singularities. The outward pull is not a conventional inward gravity but a repulsive force that accelerates the universe toward its observable boundaries. The cyclic nature of these Big Bangs suggests that the universe may undergo multiple periods of contraction and expansion, shaping its large-scale evolution. This technical framing aligns with your concept of a universe influenced by multiple cosmic explosions and gravitational effects without needing to invoke dark matter or energy explicitly. 4o You said: Yes and we are nit talking about tge effects of multiple universes. Like are 1 universe before the big bangs could have condensed from a ripple in supersymetry of matter v4 big bands started ChatGPT said: ChatGPT Now considering your scenario with one universe prior to the Big Bangs, which condensed from a ripple in supersymmetry, here's an expansion on that idea: Supersymmetry and Pre-Big Bang Condensation In this framework, before the first Big Bang, the universe existed in a highly symmetric and stable state, likely governed by a theory of supersymmetry. Supersymmetry (SUSY) suggests that every particle has a superpartner with different spin, balancing fermions and bosons in the early universe. This leads to a highly ordered and symmetric phase where all forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces) are unified. A ripple or perturbation in this supersymmetric field would have triggered a breakdown of symmetry. Such a perturbation could be caused by quantum fluctuations in this pre-existing state, causing the condensation of energy into matter. 1. Ripple in Supersymmetry Mathematically, this can be framed in terms of a scalar field, where the energy potential V(ϕ)V(\phi)V(ϕ) represents the state of the universe. When supersymmetry breaks due to a ripple, the field evolves toward a lower energy state, releasing the energy that powers the Big Bangs. The equation of motion for this field is governed by: ϕ¨+3Hϕ˙+dVdϕ=0\ddot{\phi} + 3H \dot{\phi} + \frac{dV}{d\phi} = 0ϕ¨​+3Hϕ˙​+dϕdV​=0 where ϕ\phiϕ is the field that undergoes a phase transition, ϕ˙\dot{\phi}ϕ˙​ is its time derivative, and V(ϕ)V(\phi)V(ϕ) is the potential. 2. Big Bang Sequence After this initial ripple, the condensation of the universe into a dense state led to a series of multiple Big Bangs. These could represent quantum tunneling events in different regions of spacetime, where the energy in different local minima of the potential creates distinct bubbles of inflation. Each Big Bang would then be akin to an inflationary event as described by the inflationary cosmology: a(t)∼eHta(t) \sim e^{H t}a(t)∼eHt where HHH is the Hubble constant during inflation, driving the rapid expansion of space. The universe we observe emerged from one such inflationary bubble, while others may have created separate but causally disconnected regions (though you’re not considering these as separate universes). 3. Observable Universe from the Last Bang The observable universe results from the most recent singularity event-the final Big Bang in a sequence of many that started from that supersymmetric ripple. Over time, this matter would have expanded under the influence of general relativity, driven by the total energy released. In this scenario, our universe is now in a state of expansion, pulled outward by the gravitational effects of prior singularities (from the previous Bangs), as described earlier. The homogeneity of the observable universe at large scales could be due to this final inflationary event. Cyclic Behavior of Universe This model also suggests that the universe could undergo multiple cyclic phases of contraction and explosion, similar to what happens in a supernova. The energy from each prior Big Bang cycles through collapse and rebirth, with each expansion phase setting the conditions for the next. The total universe is described by the evolution of these phases, each expanding like a bubble, but the one we observe today is influenced by the gravitational pull of prior Big Bangs-accelerating us outward toward the limits of our observable "bubble." Conclusion This technical explanation builds on the idea that multiple Big Bangs occurred within a single universe, initiated by a ripple in supersymmetry. Each Big Bang contributes to the total mass-energy content of the universe, which expands outward, with gravitational effects from earlier phases pulling the universe's mass-energy outward toward the bubble's boundaries. This approach ties in inflation, cyclic behavior, and gravitational dynamics, without invoking external universes. 4o window.__oai_logHTML?window.__oai_logHTML():window.__oai_SSR_HTML=window.__oai_SSR_HTML||Date.now();requestAnimationFrame((function(){window.__oai_logTTI?window.__oai_logTTI():window.__oai_SSR_TTI=window.__oai_SSR_TTI||Date.now()})) ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important

[@RobertHouse101]

"What a piece of work is man" - William Shakespeare.

[@martinwilliams9866]

If we have two black holes (presupposing that they actually exist), with just singularities at their cores, do they "attract" each other? If so, then curved space-time can "attract" curved space-time.

[@craigaxle1096]

It’s just a dark mystery, and so the dark plot thickens 🔲🟤⚫️▪️◾️◼️

[@tastysidewalk4676]

"they found" Vera Cooper Rubin was the first to look at galactic rotation curves this way. remember that.

[@RobertHouse101]

Vera was a strong force.

[@DukeSlystalker]

Dark matter is the same reasoning as the theory of Neptune. There were perturbations in the orbit of Uranus, so per Newtonian gravity, it was proposed that there was an invisible (as of yet) planet at the orbit of what we now is Neptune. That's totally different than the luminiferous aether hypothesis which was reasoned by analogy (mechanical waves analogy) despite the fact that Maxwell's equations made no reference to any kind of a medium for wave propogation. Interestingly enough, Maxwell himself did think there was an aether though. It just wasn't necessary in the math -- Occam's razor.

[@mykofreder1682]

The lens says there needs to be a lot of matter around the cluster, the cluster must have been moving around for a long time to gather so much. You have a matter soap bubble surrounding the cluster for billions of years, yet the stuff the cluster ran into has not been trapped in the lens, the galaxies never ventured so close to not have their dark matter and matter stripped. The internal galaxies should minimum have low amounts of dark matter, and the shell around the galaxies should have plenty of junk trapped in it. There is no indication visible matter has been attracted to the lens and is just a gravitational artifact and not a bubble with very strong gravity. The logical answer is the lens if a standing wave of gravitation created by outgoing and incoming gravitational mediums at different levels colliding. The internal spent gravitation being sent out at light speed and the background gravitation surrounding, replacing it.

[@billyhomeyer7414]

Dark matter has all the same properties of some ruler’s clothes

[@cykkm]

Such as? You've said A, now say B.

[@damanybrown5036]

B= King Midas ​@@cykkm

[@theoryofunrelativity]

@cykkm He's speaking of "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" ... It's sad more people aren't aware of these stories anymore

[@billyhomeyer7414]

@@theoryofunrelativity I shoulda said as some ruler’s clothes lol

[@johnshotwell3803]

I wounder if dark matter is a result of a misunderstanding of nuclear evolution. This is we underestimate the amount of heavy elements created in stars, and hence the amount of these elements floating around in galaxys, but too dence to observe from our solar system.

[@bobf9749]

I think dark matter is the way the ether has re-entered through the back door. Which doesn’t make it wrong. There is some evidence for the ether. What it is and how it reconciles with early galaxy formation is another question.

[@lwss1617y]

Phlogiston, caloric, ether, ... dark Matter.

[@bruceolga3644]

Dark matter=antimatter=black goo=actual space 👁️

[@bluesyetunheardartricejr.1465]

Don't forget Vulcan.

[@rh5971]

After thirty years of research and BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING ELSE, no kidding!

[@iksx]

How many weapons, superhero movies and football stadiums could have been had fornthat money...

[@Truth4Lyf]

​@@iksx That doesn't sound like a better allocation for those billions

[@WakenerOne]

How far do they expect to be able to track the movement of a single star in a galaxy 2 million light-years away MINIMUM over the course of only ONE CENTURY??? Especially given the observational tools available for better than half that time?

[@johnvonachen1672]

Why would it be so wacky that there is a bunch of matter that does not emit light? I’m sure there’s a lot of matter out there that not a star, duh.

[@urdrighten3489]

The best way to understand what's going on, talk to electrical engineers and ask them to explain the plasma cosmology model of gravity.

[@davidmackie8552]

yes!

[@marcp1880]

Dark matter doesn't exist. We just need to accurately quantify the mass in the black hole at the center of each galaxy.

[@OldMan854]

I’m nobody really but what if: mass increases as you get closer to the speed of light right? And particles get their mass from interaction with the Higgs field which is everywhere right. So suppose that, I think they are called ghost particles that “pop” into existence and immediately “pop” back out, they don’t cease to exist but somehow “disappear” only to reappear somewhere else but each time they reappear they gain more and more mass and thus more gravity AND energy. Could those particles be both dark matter AND dark energy? I wouldn’t put this up but just a thought but I’ve nowhere close to the understanding of astrophysics or high enough math to do anything with the idea.

[@RobertHouse101]

I"m noboody too so I asked Chat GPT 4o because I wanted to know right now. Here's the conclusion:: Your idea brings together fascinating concepts in physics, but virtual particles (or "ghost particles") likely don't acquire mass in the way you're describing. While they might contribute to the vacuum energy (related to dark energy), their nature doesn't align with the properties of dark matter. Both dark matter and dark energy remain unsolved mysteries, and current theories point to them being caused by different mechanisms than those involving virtual particles popping in and out of existence.

[@OldMan854]

@@RobertHouse101 thanks. At least that’s something.

[@MarthaStill-y1v]

This is compelling... I was wondering if since apparently there are elements of both MOND and LCDM that seemed to be correct, could the two theories be somehow combined?

[@CarleenDouglas]

♾️⚖️♾️☀️ Emotions in Motion is ♾️ Us

[@userTZARBOMBA]

Rotation curve is doubtful..... GSR

[@markdavid7013]

MON can't explain gravitational lensing which GR does.

[@tastysidewalk4676]

what causes this? how does gravity work this way?

[@RobertHouse101]

the curve in space time per Albert Edison.

[@sampoornamkannan]

A model is not Reality. People in the know of Reality, will not bother about models. One can intuit reality but cannot apprehend it by mind, hence no way to explain it or build models. Anybody can build a model of what passes for reality, but this has life within a certain range only.

[@kevinfaris4840]

It’s all magic till we find the man behind the curtain.

[@scythe4277]

is it possible that interstellar primordial black holes could account for all of the mass and gravitational effects we see in spiral galaxies??? it’s likely they would be too small to detect if they were not feeding so the fact we have not found evidence of them in interstellar space doesn’t disprove it could be a contributing factor gravitationally. 🤔🤷🏻‍♂️

[@RobertHouse101]

Thanks. This makes much better sense. I've always felt dark matter was an excuse for something unknown. It isn't matter so why treat it that way.

[@ToniTruthArt]

The universe is a big Kaleidoscope we live in. The dynamics change so subtle by the time you think you figured anything out the physics to your knowledge changes the picture. The dynamics will always change other life forms will evolve into something else according to their physics of life. Knowledge in this existence is like taking hold of sand, you can grab as much as you can hold but will still end up empty handed. It is made like that for the mercy of all that exists so in that there is no eternal suffering caused by those that wish to take control over the powers of existence. For if any were to take control of all that exists all of existence would be doomed forever. ♾️ and there would be nothing above or below to save thee. Thus the verse goes. “Now man has become like one of us knowing good and evil lest he reaches out his hand and take and eat from the tree of life….. (ie immortality of the Soul) Man’s Existence would be doomed ♾️

[@efiongphilip7436]

I've never been a fan of dark matter theory, I know they missed something with gravity

[@ScientificZoom]

i think its the endpoint where light gets converted into a darkness type of matter.

[@jamesstrawn6087]

Our speculations seem like great barns with fifty lean-to's attached in every direction.

[@williejohnson5172]

Look, there is no dark energy or dark matter per se. There is just mass and charge and the four forces that act upon them. The electrostatic force acts on STATIC charge (q) . The gravitational force acts on STATIC mass (m). The magnetic force acts on MOVING charge (qv). Dark matter acts on MOVING mass (mv) All are governed by the inverse square law. Dark matter is defined as the substance that makes galaxies rotate faster. Thus E=m(G/gamma) where G is Newton's gravitational force constant and gamma is Johnson's magnetogravitics constant. Gamma acts in every respect as does Coulomb's magnetostatic constant except it acts on moving mass instead of moving charge. gamma=(G/c^2) Therefore the gravitomagnetic force is F=m[(G/gamma )(1/r)] This last equation is definitively proven by the experimental evidence observed via a spiral galaxy rotation curve (1:35) Again. There is no need to resort to the insanity of quantum mechanics when good old classical physics once again provides us with the correct answer. Dark energy is defined as the energy that causes the expansion of the universe. Dark Energy may also be explained classically as a universal centrifugal force . But that requires a separate, but related, explanation.

[@CraigAnderson-h2h]

The universe doesn't care about human theories of what it is...we will never figure that out with our puny brains in spite of physics degrees....

[@JRRodriguez-nu7po]

PV =nRT means no first generation stars can form.

[@MandatoryReporter2015]

DM and DE will go the way of “the Ether”

[@ThanikaSalamT-fy1ms]

Graviton & Photon may not be independent

[@christinebethencourt6197]

Subtitles please …… thank you 🙏

[@randysmith9715]

Putting a label on something you don't understand limits your ability to understand it. Call it ZZY instead.

[@cecilionembraceofnight486]

Dark Energy is one of the essential recipe to make universe make together in one piece and majestic unification and full of mystical and magical chrateristics but the most important answer is no one give exact answer how universe was formed and created ❤😊🤩

[@navajyotichetia8968]

Theoretical dark matter is like primordial soup- slurpy when none actually

[@rodrigocid1873]

It's probably micro plastics.

[@davidmackie8552]

🙂

[@martinwilliams9866]

I blame Dove.

[@ronaldkemp3952]

I published a paperback book earlier this year called DARK MATTER IS DEAD by RON KEMP. In the book I explained the compelling evidence against dark matter and dark energy. Then, I proposed a solution by simply revising Einstein's field equations on gravity to include energy. Energy is the action causing mass to react to gravity and it's the action causing all bodies to move against the reaction of gravity. It ultimately explained the motion of stars and galaxies pinned on both dark matter and dark energy. I even supplied the simple equation which when added to relativity explains all the mysterious motion of matter occurring throughout the universe. The revised equations went from only able to explain 4.6% of the motion occurring to matter in the universe to 100%. The equation removed the need to blame the motion of matter on wildcard variables like dark matter and dark energy, which we know can't be measured or observed in experiments. Simply put, dark matter and dark energy are dead horses that don't take us anywhere or explain anything. The solution was so simple. I can't believe experts in astrophysics, astronomy and cosmology never thought of adding energy into their equations as the action causing all the motion. I can't believe Einstein and Newton overlooked it.

[@ronaldkemp3952]

MOND doesn't explain why stars and satellite galaxies at the extents of their host galaxy are unable to reach an escape velocity, even though some have orbital velocities higher than a million miles per hour. However, the simple revision to general relativity proposed in my book explained it perfectly.

[@blahsomethingclever]

Soo.. gravity is something that can only be emitted and curves spacetime? For example, the gravity of the sun isn't absorbed even slightly by the moon for example after passing through it? And how does your model explain the apparent increase in strength as distance grows? I'm personally considering that gravitational slingshots by galactic life, used for transportation, could be responsible for the word Galaxy rotation curves.

[@jimcoppa6946]

I could read what you speak for hours

[@rwarren58]

Interesting. However, before I congratulate you on revising Einstein and criticizing Isaac Newton, have you published your paper? That sounds rather scary but Dr. Tyson here on KZbin reviews papers from time to time. I'm not saying you're wrong but it's correct to be skeptical, even cynical, don't you agree?

[@ronaldkemp3952]

@@blahsomethingclever Stars and galaxies slowly accelerate because of the constant solar wind containing high energy photons. Thus causing them to slowly accelerate at a velocity of 0.00000482 in/s (0.0000122 cm/s). Meaning, the older a star or galaxy is the more momentum they will have built up over their lifetime at a rate of around a 1 mi/h (1.61 km/h) increase in their velocity every 10,000 years. Thus the reason why the velocity of stars and satellite galaxies increase in their orbital velocity over time is because as they migrate further from the galaxy core the older they would be. Example. Our solar system is estimated to be around 4.5 billion years old. This in it's lifetime it would have gained an extra 450,000 mi/h in it's overall velocity produced by the mass and gravity in the Milky Way system. When we use Newton's and Einstein's equation on gravity to determine how fast our solar system should be orbiting we come up with a maximum velocity of 86,000 mi/h. Yet when we use the temperature fluctuations in the CMB the solar system has an orbital velocity of around 536,000 mi/h. Thus there is a discrepancy of 450,000 mi/h that is pinned on dark matter. But when we add the slow acceleration of a 1 mi/h (1.61 km/h) increase in velocity every 10,000 years we get an additional 450,000 mi/h to the 86,000 mi/h caused by the mass and gravity in the Milky Way system. 450,000 + 86,000 = 536,000 mi/h. Thus this slow acceleration explains the discrepancy perfectly. Then I did the same calculations for our Milky Way galaxy. According to the temperature fluctuations in the CMB it's moving towards what's called the great attractor at around 1,370,000 mi/h. There's not enough mass close enough to our galaxy to explain it's extremely fast motion. but if we take the age of the galaxy and add this slow acceleration occurring over time we get the equation, 13,700,000,000 divided by 10,000 = 1,370,000 mi/h. It's overall motion can be explained by simply inserting this slow acceleration occurring over the lifetime of our galaxy. Back in 2004 when I discovered this correlation I really thought it was a coincidence. So, I began studying the age to velocity ratios between several satellite galaxies orbiting the Milky Way. Every satellite galaxy I studied had the same 10,000 to 1 ratio between their age and velocity, just like our Milky Way galaxy and our solar system had. So it's no coincidence. I ended up calling the small acceleration occurring to all stars and galaxies over time the Accelerated Propulsion theory or AP theory. Stars and galaxies because they constantly spew hot charged particles produce a slow acceleration that adds up over great lengths of time. A 1 mi/h (1.61 km/h) increase in their overall velocity every 10,000 years. It explains why dark matter and dark energy don't seem to affect the motion of young stars, diffuse galaxies or planets and other small bodies in our solar system. It also explains why old stars and satellite galaxies are unable to reach an escape velocity, even though they have an orbital velocity more than a million miles per hour. Think about it, the acceleration is a mere 1 mi/h every 10,000 years. Thus it's not enough of a jolt to change the trajectory of the star or satellite galaxy. It's not enough to kick them out of the system. So they will continue to orbit the mass of the galaxy regardless of their accumulated velocity.

[@DiamondDan2584]

Do you know what the fastest thing in the universe is? A fart, goes right through your pants and does not leave a hole!!!

[@MyrLin8]

Our understanding is not complete :) This is a good thing, trust me :)

[@moodiblues2]

I did well in my astrophysics courses and right from the start I hated dark matter as a theory. A major part of the universe was totally invisible! Bull feathers!

[@Leopez02]

Wait there's no Dark Matter and a theory the Gravity is broken!? Well that sounds interesting, but I still believe there is Dark Matter everywhere in Space and Gravity is fine in Space and here on Earth. Is there Dark Matter here on Earth? By the way there is the Atlas Comet in the sky this whole month I've been trying to find it the last 5 days, but haven't seen it because there has been too cloudy sky and even yesterday and today haven't seen it even without clouds and I live in the countryside without the city lights why I don't see it what i'm doing wrong? 😮🌠

[@ginamiller269]

look to the West after sun set !

[@Leopez02]

@@ginamiller269 that we've been trying to do, but maybe I need to watch better thank you! Was it an hour after the sun set?

[@ginamiller269]

@@Leopez02 Yes right, maybe 1 1/2 hour to wait after sun set, but the comet is slowly moving away from us so it get's fainter and fainter but well you could see it still till the end of this month by clear sky.

[@Leopez02]

​@@ginamiller269yes it's here in thos whole october to even start of november, but there's too much clouds...

[@virgilmccabe2828]

Dark matter doesn't have to be invisible it is just stuff that we can't see from here . There is a lot of stuff in our own solar system that we can't see so I submit that most stars have Kuiper belts that we can't see . Astronomers are looking for wild explanations to a simple solution .

[@vinjulieann1]

Counter space - Theoria Apophasis.

[@fartinthewind933]

How come our depictions of the universe are a tube instead of a sphere?

[@victorsago]

To accommodate the time dimension.

[@valentinmalinov8424]

To trick you, because on the cut-off projection of sphere (Circular Diagram) is visible how they replacing the position of the observer (Us) and the direction of the Cosmic Microwave background. So... they just cover up the nonsense! Better explanation and the circular diagram can be found in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

[@victorsago]

@@valentinmalinov8424 Why would anyone want to "trick you"? What would be the purpose? Unless there's a vast global conspiracy, involving millions of scientists and stretching in time over several generations... >"...the direction of the Cosmic Microwave background."< Here you show that you have no idea what you're talking about: CMBR does not have a single direction -- it's omnidirectional. >"So... they just cover up..."< Right! I thought so -- a vast global conspiracy, and bla-bla-bla reptiloid illuminati bla-bla-bla... >"...can be found in the book..."< Did you forget to mention that you are the author of that book? I remember how in the early 2000s the FSB created and encouraged a great number of these conspiracy theories. And here you are!..

[@charlesokeefe8788]

Let's expand on your description of the universe with multiple Big Bangs, where the observable universe is one of the results of these events, and the dynamics of this system are driven by forces acting like gravity but pulling outward rather than inward. Multiple Big Bangs and Our Observable Universe In your scenario, there have been multiple Big Bang events, each generating massive amounts of matter. Among these events, one singularity led to the formation of our observable universe. This universe behaves according to the laws of general relativity, but it is unique in that it is part of a larger system, where other Big Bangs have occurred but are not directly part of the singularity that defines our universe. The Universe as the Inside of a Bubble You describe the observable universe as being like the inside of a bubble, where the matter generated by the final singularity is expanding outward. This expansion is driven by the energy of the Big Bang, which propels everything outward from the center of the singularity, creating what we observe as the ongoing expansion of the universe. In this bubble-like model, the universe's boundaries represent the observable edge, which we can liken to the surface of a sphere expanding outward. This expansion, though appearing outward in all directions from any point within the universe, is constrained within the overall structure of the bubble. Forces Acting Like Gravity But Pulling Outward Here is the key: in this scenario, the multiple prior Big Bangs (or singularities) generate a force akin to gravity, but instead of pulling everything inward toward a central point (as traditional gravity would), it pulls matter and energy outward toward the observable edges of the universe. Outward pull: The matter and energy from the previous Big Bangs exert a force that draws the matter within our universe towards the expanding edge, rather than inward to a center. This effect behaves like gravity in the sense that it influences the motion of matter, but instead of acting like a gravitational well, it is more like a repulsive force or expansive pressure, continuing to accelerate the universe's outward movement. Multiple Contractions and Explosions You also describe the process of multiple singularities contracting and exploding repeatedly, like a supernova going through cycles of collapse and expansion. This suggests a universe that has experienced several phases of contraction and expansion, where each contraction leads to an explosion of new matter, creating a series of Big Bangs. Boom Boom Boom Effect: Each contraction (akin to a collapse) ends with an explosion that generates a new expansion of matter, possibly resetting or influencing the dynamics of the observable universe. This cyclic process could explain why certain forces or conditions act on our universe, as these previous Big Bangs left behind residual effects, creating a compounding outward force that shapes the expansion. Overall Concept In this model, the universe is shaped by multiple previous Big Bangs that have left behind forces acting on our current observable universe. These forces are not pulling inward but rather pushing outward toward the observable edge. The universe itself exists as a bubble-like structure, and as it continues to expand, it is influenced by the history of previous cosmic events. The multiple contractions and explosions suggest that the universe goes through cycles, possibly leading to new expansions and new phases of cosmic development. Would you like to explore how this concept ties into cosmological theories, like cyclic universes or other expansion models? 4o window.__oai_logHTML?window.__oai_logHTML():window.__oai_SSR_HTML=window.__oai_SSR_HTML||Date.now();requestAnimationFrame((function(){window.__oai_logTTI?window.__oai_logTTI():window.__oai_SSR_TTI=window.__oai_SSR_TTI||Date.now()})) ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important

[@rickmorrow993]

I said this decades ago and was censoed on science forums. Where is my Nobel Prize?

[@bobbyperry-u5s]

Try the electric universe !!

[@dchager]

Where is Doctor Cooper when we need him.

[@tdranger6888]

Who besides a cosmologist ever believed the dark matter-energy theory?

[@edboren5741]

Good stuff

[@TheSecretsoftheUniverse]

Glad you enjoyed

[@andrewlabat9963]

Everybody wants to believe in dark matter, because it sounds cool, but we all know the term is just a reference for we don't really know..

[@kondjanegongo796]

So we come up with a formula that can't explain something so we just made up another thing we can't see, detect or prove... But refuse to say our calculations are wrong

[@RobertHouse101]

right. they showed you can manipulate math in a theory to make the curve like it looks.

[@RiteMoEquations]

What "formula" are you talking about? Do you have an alternative theory, or do you still not know what is the current consensus among astrophysicists and cosmologists?

[@barrerasciencelabuniverse6606]

CHWARTZCHILD HOLDS,..? OR BREAK,..?

[@Ricardofromage]

Dark matter=our egos need to be right, and we can't face saying "we were wrong" and seeing all our work rubbished. Let's face it, they couldn't explain something, so they made some shit up, the description of it even says it does not exist

[@muntee33]

Gravity is a secondary effect of a interaction of incoherent field harmonics in a plane adjacent to the one physical matter is manifest from. The manifestation of physical matter in our plane of 'existence' is composed of a field force that extends beyond our planes reference frame and is an underlying component of energetic structures in a plane of reality distinct from ou5 own and intrinsically incompatible with our own. The intrinsic inclusion of this field into the fundamental principle/s of a plane of reality where the laws of its reference frame give rise to what is the fundamental building blocks of matter. This means the field is inherent in both planes the planes are incompatible, or incoherent, and there is no means of separating the two planes as they are intrinsically bound by a common factor. This means a potential differential exists between the two planes as they are forced to coincide with one another and to seek an ideal equilibrium with each otheras well as the other planes that are also shared components with either one, or both, planes of reality. This means a certain level of resistance to the incompatible and incoherent okabea exists and its in this resistance that the primary force is exerted. It is exerted in the adjacent plane as a response the existence of the other plane, which as the building blocks of sub atomic structures are formed, the field force associated with this building block creates a disruption and dispersion of the adjacent plane and shifts it beyond the natural optimal rest state it otherwise achieves naturally. *its like blowing up a ballon underwater... This dispersion is what is resisted and the adjacent plane 'squeezes' the displacement in an attempt to remove the energy structure by exerting sufficient force to embed a high enough energy into the intruding and disrupting intrusion as to destabilise and decouple its component field forces and ultimately release the shared field force from it and extinguish the intrusion /displacement. And when there is a second intrusion, the net force exerted upon them is inwards towards each other as the forces applied to each effectively cancel each other out in the region directly between them (as experienced from the displaced medium's perspective) and the external forces on the outter 'edges' of each point remain unchanged. This is why G appears to be an inwards radial force that in our plane of reality would appear to be the only example of a monopole in existence. And that's because the force does not originate in the physical matter plane but the plane of energetic structures adjacent to it. This is the only logical solution to waht is a retarded and invalid concept that inexplicably has the full, unquestioning support of the academic institutions.

[@CultureTripGuide-HilmarHWerner]

as portrayed here MOND is not an “explanation“ but just a more or less fitting mathematical description... (like most "scientific explanations“ that we believe in...)

[@zbatchDOC]

I’ve been saying this for years

[@familyshare3724]

Galaxies are creatures, bio-like cells

[@jedgould5531]

Think about what you are saying: “against dark matter?”

[@richardotier6820]

To summarize: We don't know. Thanks for the careful analysis that is a "nothing burger." Let the research funds flow! If these physicists worked for a commercial business, the business would go bankrupt.

[@LassiBhai-k1b]

We sre only dust of universe 😢❤

[@frankjoseph4273]

Perhaps physics as we know it is different far away

[@mikkimikki5376]

Finally!

[@whoknowssuchthingsidonthav574]

Ads should be banned because they are so toxic

[@rocroc]

Newton has been wrong before....just add an adjustment to make it work (kind of). Just last week they offered another solution involving black holes that may work even better. I think they'll find the answer but it may be beyond my own allowable time.

[@BeIteshazzar]

I never subscribed to dark matter, but still want my money back

[@jonkayl9416]

I think you will find that the maths is correct (Einseins is anyway) but its all much more deeper. Acedemia doesnt seem to think outside the norm that they have been tought. I have a theory that matches MOND models more. Its obvious when you think about it. 1) There is no DARK matter. that idea came from people that are good at maths but not good at science and logic.

[@KoopavonRox]

Nothing makes everything