The rate at which galaxies are rotating indicate that there should be much more gravity than that which is provided by there observational mass.
Thus dark matter comes into play.
but the following explanation may free us from the concept of dark matter--
By general relativity, "gravitational wells" (or distortions) are formed by matter.
the G.W. of a galaxy would be definitely a large one.
Thus the galaxy is "trapped" in a "pit" (ie-the G.W) .Now though it's centripetal force is greater than its gravitation, the difference isn't enough to allow any matter to get out. ie- the boundaries of the G.W. are providing the required opposing force (by newton's 3rd Law???) to keep the matter in the G.W.
In this way dark matter doesn't come into picture at all. :blink:

i'd like to get flaws and subsequent suggestions for improvement for this theory.

Yes, I get your point. I'd stated a similar thread. But by laws of circular motion, dark matter has to exist for them to revolve fast. Suggestions- View my Dark Matter thread & read the answers the remaining members have given me.

this isn't quite necessary. i can take a body and rotate it fast. By inertia it'll continously rotate at that speed. and depending uponit's centripital force and gravity, it'll shed the required mass.
Same thing with a celestial object.

I'm not sure I follow all this ... have you written out the various equations?

In any case, when one created models of galaxies, all the effects you describe are included ... and the need for DM is still there.

Not trapped in the pit, it made the ‘pit’, and the pit is in space, and space is the ‘galaxy’—literally.

What you are describing is the anisotropic gradient of a finiteless space.

The pit is the anisotropy in spaces distribution, when in close proximity to standing sine waves in space, which we call ‘matter’. Thus, the +/- anisotropies (which ‘particles’ are compositely composed of), all impart a quantised 'pit' of anisotropic gradient (i.e. an asymmetric space distribution in and around it). The pits anisotropic gradients are cumulative, thus the galaxy is a tension ‘pit’, which is literally massive—an anisotropic gradient of mass and tension—where an elastic space has become literally different in tension and mass distribution, due to the sine wave ‘matter’.

Your 'pit' is just high-tensioned elastic space, itself.

When you hold an elastic taut, then the two ends are attracted to each other, and in an elastic space, this translates to gravity—an elastically attracting ‘force’(anisotropy gradient delineating the pit’s volume).

m is the literal mass of that space, and is inversely related to tension, G, as these two are for any real elastic.

But G and m of space can only become measurable when space is not isotropic in its real distribution, because at tension an mass isotropy G and m are the same everywhere, and a G which is the same from all directions can not be felt or measured from any direction.

So even though G and m of space are always present in space, even when space is fully isotropic in tension and density, they are not measurable, and impart no acceleration vector.

Thus, such space has to have an anisotropic gradient (the outer edge of the 'pit'), before a 'force' vector emerges above zero, even though the G ‘force’ was already present prior. In other words, G had to change from an omni-self-interacting force, to a directional force in a line toward the centre of the anisotropy cluster which formed the gradient.

But an elastic has more than tension, it also has a mass, and so does real space, and as with real elastic, the relationship of tension to mass is an inverse one.

In other words, where you have a tension gradient (a pit) ... you also instantly get a directional mass gradient, within an infinitely elastic space.

So if G is tension in an elastic space, then we can predict the effect of the exactly proportionally inverse mass gradient upon the matter within the pit.

The pit only formed because sine waves in space clustered together there over time. There is no 'matter' at all in the cosmos, that is an irrelevant mental artefact, there are only clusters and areas of wavyness in space itself, oscillating space at v=c as +/- anisotropies, which combine in composite structures we call ‘particles’.

These particle structures pull space into themselves within the waveform’s own distortion of space, as high anisotropy centres, but otherwise are just oscillating space, and nothing else whatever.

This pulling a massive space in is both how these wavy-space particles acquire mass, and also why the high tension pit mechanically forms around the standing waves.

This higher anisotropy inside the ‘wave-particle’ radius, exhibits space's mass very strongly, as it has been pulled-in from outside the particles immediate radius.

The exact same feature is true for the Galaxy, as a whole.

This is why the space around the galaxy is a high G (tensional space) ‘pit’ or gradient, because much of the space that was formerly distributed outside the galaxy, has since been pulled inside the galaxy, via the cumulative wave oscillation distortions to space, within the 'solids’ which the +/- anisotropies have dynamically constructed, as they clustered, and since. Thus you get cosmic scale attractive elastic gravity, as the anisotropic gradient curves away to averaged isotropy levels, at great distance from the galaxy which form the vast gradient. In other words, gravity is not infinite in its directional mode, but it is in its omni-directional mode, (but in that mode, there is no acceleration possible). This pulling in of space (not particles or atoms), is what produces the spiral-form and elliptical galaxies structures. The spiral waves are space density waves (or rather, standing anisotropy gradient waves). Material ejected from the core of a galaxy thus passes from a very high-tension and inversely low-mass density core space region, into a low-tension and inversely high-mass density well above the disk or bulge space, hence, active dynamic changes to spectral composition, during ejection and highly elliptical orbits into and out of the core.

Thus, the strong elastic attractive 'force', G, between centres of 'mass' (mass being just space at higher density than cosmic isotropy), and the inverse mass gradient coincide with this G gradient … because both are literally due to elastic space having become anisotropically distributed via wave in space, which has clustered into 'matter' structures.

It is this inverse space mass anisotropy gradient, the 'pit', which is providing this extra, non-visible, non-emitting mass acceleration, which we have called "missing mass"!

The “missing mass” is the anisotropic space mass gradient, itself.

It is physical, but is not matter, it is just space out of isotropic equilibrium.

Naturally, the closer to the centre of the clustered +/- anisotropy, the steeper the space mass gradient's acceleration becomes.

That is why the outer rim is dominated by the unseen mass, but closer in it is dominated by the solid +/- anisotropies effects, as their density increases toward the centre of the anisotropy in space’s very deep and steep pit in the galactic core.

That is the physical mechanical meaning of what the MOND adjustment describes for dynamics.

Dark matter isn't matter, the former name for it was 'missing mass', and that is what it really was.

I hope this helps you.

--

This is a literally real, infinitely-elastic space, with real mass and tension, and exhibits infinite impedance at v=c, and 'force' is proportional to the ratio of local anisotropy to the average cosmic isotropy of space’s distribution.

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

Hi FDNE
It is very interesting. If Dark Matter play a role in rotation of the galaxy it should be inside of galaxy. Nobody detect axion, neutralino, sneutrino, graviton and neutrino mass is very tiny. Dark Matter in a halo does not help at all. We have an evidence of a nonluminous matter in the intergalaxy space according to the gravitationally lensing but it is not Dark Matter holding the galaxy together.
There have to be an attractive force inside a galaxy joint all this matter or repulsive force outside the galaxy pressing the matter together.
The gravitationally force exist but is to small for it. I agree with your idea of an anisotropic gradient of mass and tension. The space has its structure and its oscillations cause the tension. This tension do manifest by different force (gravity, electromagnetic…).
In my idea in galaxy is the gravity supported by an electrostatic force (ionized gas in clouds, stars and in the interstellar space)

Hi Czeslaw,

I gather you mean that the anisotropic gradient which makes up 'force', at all scales, adds an extra attractive electrical vector at closer range?

Keep in mind that just because the inner-most part of the disk and core are at the highest tension, and therefore the lowest ‘ambient’ space mass inversion down the gradient ‘pit’, this doesn’t mean that space itself does not still have mass. It’s just that the mass of space will become progressively lower the deeper we go, because space is being increasingly distended, but to nowhere near zero space mass.

i.e. even in the inner-core, space will still have mass, lots of it, it's just that its attractive vector component contribution has become the secondary and more minor component, to the then primary and much larger ‘solid’ particle's summed masses, and thus to the NET G vector component of the mid-disk to deep core region.

So we have two competing G components, one from the particles, and the other from space's mass, within the galaxy.

This is what accounts for the MOND adjustment relationship, and observed galactic dynamics.

So yes, outside you have a very massive space at lower tension and higher mass density per unit volume, which has a strong effect on the dynamics of the outer galaxy (as particle density is rarefied on the rim), but as you go in toward the core, the mass of space, per unit volume, will drop as the NET space tension rises, and space’s contribution to the NET attractive vector and dynamics will become the junior effect, as the very high tension and low space mass core is approached. But space is still contributing an acceleration at all times, and adjusting the NET acceleration vector caused by the space which has been pulled into the particle's sine wave oscillation requirements, at all radii from the galactic core. This change in dynamics is due to space being pulled into the particles, rather than more evenly distributed (as per beyong the outer rim)

So this is an implied extra attractive (composite) G vector, and is integral to the very simple mechanics of a finiteless space, and this anisotropic gradient (‘force’) is still expressed in the form we refer to as G, at these scales.

The 'solid' wave-particles are increasingly providing more of the NET attractive force, but never all of it at any radii from the centre.

I hope this clarifies the implied dynamics a little further.

--

Mass is energy and energy is mass, and this is the 'missing mass', and also space's 'dark energy', explained as ONE very simple elastic, stored tension, mechanical system.

And this simple space also works in explaining electromagnetism and what the electron and it's features are in actual natural mechanical terms, with just as much logical simplicity.

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

Interesting ideas FDNE.

Have you got as far as getting equations out of your ideas? How about quantitative constraints?

In the way you write, you seem to consider the only 'missing mass' worthy of consideration that which MOND has had some success accounting for, namely, DM in (spiral) galaxies. Yet, as we know, most of the 'missing mass' isn't in (the halos) of spiral galaxies, it's in rich galaxy clusters (and MONDians freely fess up to being quite unable to address DM in rich clusters).

How does your idea relate to DM in rich clusters? Specifically, how does it account for good observations of:
- the virial cluster mass?
- the X-ray data?
- the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect?
- gravitational (cluster) lensing, both strong and weak?

I'm replying as per the numbers in the quote.

--

[1] Thank you Neried, though this is of course not the venue for elaboration of that sort.

--

[2] This is not just for spiral-forms, it applies to all galaxies, and all mutually orbiting clusters, and wider networks. Which of course implies the centre of the ‘great voids’ are approaching true isotropy, or rather, approaching zero anisotropy gradient, due to the equidistant wave-‘particle’ mass coming from all directions, thus self-cancelling the surrounding anisotropy gradient’s acceleration vector near to the centre of the voids.

i.e. lower tension and inversely higher mass. In that sense, the ‘centers’ of the great voids are almost waveless, in terms of composite standing wave matter … yet x-ray tendrils of space tension and lower mass can begin to infiltrate and dissect them as space’s expansion continues infinitely and isotropic space tension continually rises, and space mass continually falls with time, as slow gradual isotropic cosmic expansion drives this. After all what is the area in such elastic space which is most able to accommodate a continuous expansion tension rise, if not the lower-tension voids being infiltrated by higher tension tendrils (like the roots of a plant growing through soil).

It’s this same very simple underlaying elastic tension and space mass mechanics, in all cases.

In the case of clusters, the cluster simply makes the intense inter galaxy anisotropic gradient a complex gradient surface, with tension peaks which coincide with and lay in a line (non-Euclidean line) between all galactic centers within the cluster (as is the same between two out of phase +/- anisotropies in the electron example I gave in the other thr*ead).

i.e. if you can picture this, the peak in the anisotropy gradient (of tension and inverse space mass), arcs from the core of one galaxy to the core of all the other galaxies within the cluster. After all, G observationally operates in a direct line between mass centers, and this is because that is where the peak tension and mass anisotropy is concentrated (thus the simple mechanical cause for the needed non-Euclidean relativistic adjustment is made plain and mechanically logical).

(I further suspect the reason why we see predominantly ellipticals at the cores of clusters (and their bulk spectral composition, which I take as an actually dynamic and ever-changing product, depending on depth and residence time in that part of the anisotropy gradient) is due to space’s conditions at the centre of the anisotropy pit. i.e. the elliptical’s surrounding space environment in the centre of the cluster more closely approaches the tension and inversely lower mass space conditions in the bulge of even a lone spiral galaxy's core region. Thus the giant ellipticals take on the similar dynamic elliptical and chaotic stellar orbital properties and similar spectra of a spiral’s core. Thus a star’s broad spectral class is also due to the space it exists within—or recently transited through—and not just to its mass and source material. Same for galaxies taken as a spectral whole.)

--

[3] The "Good observations" (as you put it), or measurements of virial cluster mass, are also dependent on these factors:

1. the system must be in equilibrium (or else the whole method fails)
2. the measurements span a repre-sample of bodies in the system
3. all bodies are the same mass (if not, one must try to account for the differences with fudge factors)
4. the velocity distribution is isotropic (if not, one must include some additional fudge factors)
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys440/lectu...s/gal_clus.html

So nothing is clear-cut about mass measurement.

Even if we assume observed redshift were 95% due to velocities alone (which I am by no means convinced), then we still do not have a good enough handle on 3-D location and velocity to measure mass without significant error, which makes quantitative mass estimations, 3D placement and thus the relative velocity and dynamics, less than a “good observation” or measurement.

Galaxy Cluster RDCS 1252.9-2927 (purple represents x-rays - we are seeing a 3D structure in 2D here, but even in 2D the tension tendrils coinciding with the space tension and mass anisotropy gradient +/- peaks and their effect on acceleration and relative kinetic energy release, are clearly depicted)


This image nicely illustrates the effects of the anisotropy gradient peaks between mass centres (as per [2] above) in the most massive and distant cluster yet examined in x-ray details.

As mentioned in the finiteless space thread, the peak on the gradient imparts added acceleration, thus the x-ray bridges are due to the gradient peaks accelerating wave-particles to the implied 70 million K kinetic (thermal) dynamics. These x-ray emission bridges are implicit to such a space between clusters. And will remain so into the deep visible frequency shifted cosmos (re CMBR implications).

As you see, all expressions of G lensing effects are implicit, as an anisotropic gradient is by definition, space which is non-Euclidean, due the space tension and mass distribution away from average isotropy (as per the deep void centers).

i.e. a photon in such a space behaves as if space is Euclidean when space tension and mass distribution averages to large scale isotropy (which such a space will), which accords with observation. But any elastic tension-mass anisotropy in space will produce optical G lensing, for G is greater local tension in the otherwise averaged-to isotropic tension cosmos.

Thus, a mechanical elastic finiteless space giant cluster, with its complex composite anisotropy gradient surface and space tension peaks (and space mass troughs) between the wave clustering centers (galaxies), will exhibit highly variable ray path distortions across that cluster’s 3-D anisotropy gradient.

However, as space does average to isotropy, then the average path of photons is Euclidean. But where several sets of clusters line up, then intense non-Euclidean distortion will be observed along that line of sight.

I hope this clarifies the implied mechanical elastic dynamics sufficiently.

--

I will add these further implications/considerations though;

At present a lot of galactic dynamic deformation is considered to be due to mutual galactic ‘collision’. In some cases this will be true, but in the bulk of cases, the distortion is not due to a collision, but due to the galaxy passing through, or within close proximity, of one of these anisotropy peak regions within the cluster’s mutual orbit domain.

This is why the other partner in the interpreted ‘collision’ is not visible—there never was another galaxy involved.

It was the anisotropy, in space itself (mass and tension—the local and also locationally corresponding gradient peaks and troughs of ‘missing mass’ and ‘dark energy’, respectively), which is generating both the distortion/disruption of galactic structure, altering its spectral composition dynamically, and also triggering massive star-burst phenomena, within part, or with in all of a thus affected galaxy.

The infinitely elastic space mechanical dynamic applies to all of space, and to all scales (even to slit experiments).

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

Indeed.

Irrespective of venue, have you started getting equations and stuff out of your ideas?

I feel there's little more we can discuss, at the level of handwaving.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seems you have extended or refined General Relativity. Is it possible to test your ideas on the same rack as the experiments and observations used to test GR? In the astronomical realm, this would include binary pulsars, gravitational redshift, and microlensing events (such as observed by OGLE, MACHO, etc). In our solar system, it would include the Voyager and Cassini tracking results. On Earth, it would include the 'Princeton tower' experiment (and subsequent ones).The difficulties of analysing the results, and properly addressing systematic errors are well known.

However, at the OOM level, I find it pleasing that the independent means of measuring mass come up with similar estimates ... and that these methods rely upon quite different physics suggests that either they are estimating the same thing ('mass'), or that physics is 'broken', big-time*, in these regimes. I infer from your posts that you hold this latter position.

*more accurately, that there is new physics, as yet unknown to Homo sap. (scientifically) which governs the observed behaviour of the present universe, on scales of ~1 to 100 Mpc.

If you ask a series of questions, and I then take the time and care to answer them, then get a reply of this flavor, then so be it sir.

__________________
The whole purpose of inquiry is to smash into pieces that which we think we know. Finite does not exist in any physically expressed form within our cosmos, it's a cognitive abstraction tool, but people have generally not realised this. My examination and review of observation within every scientific field is predicated upon this fundamental under-pinning principle; ‘finite’ itself is non-existent, has never existed within any physical form whatsoever in our cosmos, that finiteness and infinity are logically and actually immiscible existential states. You can have one within the cosmos, but never both. Observations make it clear that we are in an isotropically flat, open and infinitely random space. If the cosmos is observed to contain even one case of an infinity, then it contains no finiteness at all.

Indeed.

Perhaps I'm not making myself very clear ... I think it would be absolutely wonderful to see serious alternatives to mainstream cosmology! It would be sooo exciting!!

It would also be terrific to see something out of the mainstream in any part of astrophysics, especially if it were easily amenable to testing using the PB of data already in the public domain, or with modest equipment (perhaps even that amateurs have?).

However, apart from handwaving (i.e. word pictures that don't even get to OOM calculations, let alone some math and equations), here's what I've come across (in no particular order):
- lots and lots of 'far out' stuff, in theoretical papers at least submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals
- several interesting models that extend/modify GR/Newtonian gravity (e.g. MOND, and now TeVeS)
- SCC
- those brave souls, the 'plasma cosmologists'
- Mr Nicholson's $10,000 prize (DM in spirals)
... and that's pretty much it.

If FDNE's anisotropy gradient idea has legs, more power to it!

We know, there is not enough mass in the center of galaxy. There is a mass in halo around the galaxy (gravitational lensing) but it can’t holds the galaxy. The electrostatic force could hold it.

There is 1 proton surplus in 10^5 m^3 in the outer space of the galaxy and it is 10^10 stronger force then we need to avoid a mysterious Dark Matter.
The Cosmic Radiation measured in upper Earth atmosphere are mostly protons (86 %), He nucleus (13 %), electrons and other (1 %). It is 100 (+) times more then (-). The average life is about 10^8 years. This means they circle mainly in outer layer of the galaxy with velocity close to speed of the light.
This charge surplus acts like an electric condenser and creates a charge separation between outer and inner layer.
There are coming about 2500 protons/sm^2 with energy >10^6 eV to our upper atmosphere. Average density of the Cosmic Radiation is about 10^-19 J/cm^3. If they comes with speed close to light, there are 10^-5 ions/m^3 in our environment in galaxy arms. This is 10^56 not balanced charged ions with 10^37 Coulombs in the outer layer of the galaxy.
The Coulomb force between them is 10^43 N. If our Sun and the arms with average distance from the galaxy center 35 000 ly circle with average speed 220 km/s, then the force of 10^43 N may balance a mass of 10^52 kg.
The whole mass of the Milky Way is 10^42 kg.
According to the Cosmic Rays distribution we have additionally an electrostatic force.

I don't follow what you're saying - are you referring to the Milky Way galaxy? or spiral galaxies? or galaxies in general?

In any case, galaxies are not observed to be flying apart!Where did you get these figures from?You seem to be saying that there is a charge imbalance in cosmic rays - more + charges (e.g. protons) than - ones (e.g. electrons). Can you give us a reference please? (I think you have misunderstood what you have been reading, but I can't sort it out until I find out what your sources are).

I write about the spiral galaxies (Milky Way) and the force holding together the matter of the galaxy. I am sorry that I did not write it exactly. Many peoples think there is a Dark Matter with an additionally mass but there may be other forces, I think.

Is the Cosmic Rays distribution searched and estimated ?
Where are the electrons ?
How strong are the forces between this charged spaces ?
There are many data about Cosmic Rays, for example :
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...tro/cosmic.html

Your questions are good ones, as was your attempt to find these 'other forces'.

However, as you now see (I hope), there would be quite a bit more work to do to show your proposed mechanism could account for what you say it could.This was jolly good fun! Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

This paper is a helpful one, which I turned up after 10 minutes or so of Googling. I conclude that there's not much research being done into the electron component of CRs (the p, O, Fe composition, esp in the knee region, is far 'sexier', as is work on UHECR, those with energies around and above the GZK cutoff). However, it would seem that no one is much concerned about an apparent deficit of electrons, as there are plenty of mechanisms for 'winnowing out' the electrons, esp over longer path lengths, relative to protons and heavy nuclei.

I had the impression that the electrons lose their velocity through the ISM much more readily than do protons or heavier nuclei. Electron cosmic rays would have to be coming from VERY nearby sources.

On the issue of deficit, the lack of High energy electrons does not mean that there is a net charge (in the large), since the positively charges CRs are whizzing passed slower moving electrons, and at any given moment the charges are roughly equal.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

The solution is so simple: Fritz Zwicky and Vera Rubin and all after them has mixed up the spiral galaxies' angular velocity and orbital velocity.
So, the astronomer do not need to try to develope the impossible construction of the invention of dark matter.
Does anyone want to see the mathematical derivations?

Ingvar Astrand, Sweden

Sure Ingvar, show us the math.

While you're at it perhaps you can tell us how they could have gotten angular velocity (radians per second) mixed up with orbital velocity (meters per second), since the two have very different units.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Thank you Nereid for interesting link about electrons I CR. It is very helpful.

As Antoniseb wrote, the very energetic protons may be partially balanced by slowly electrons,
It seems, that protons from Cosmic Rays pull the electrons and it is an electric current between central part of galaxy and outer space. The protons should be balanced because it would be 10^10 to strong force.

This electric current causes a magnetic field in rotating galaxy. The current is when there is a voltage. A voltage is caused different charges. That way the charge (+) and (-) may be nearly balanced on the Earth but there could be some not balanced charge (-) in galaxy center and (+) in galaxy arms, halo and outer space.

Protons and nuclei may be attract by galaxy center directly from the halo and neutralized by electrons during their journey through galaxy bulge. It would be ejected by rotating heavy stars from the center as clouds of a neutral hydrogen gas H1. In galaxy arms are created nebulas under halo gas pressure. In proper density may they create the stars.

The space in galaxy arms is holds in galaxy by gravity which decrease with radius and additionally by electrostatic Coulomb force which increase with radius.

considering degenerate matter, there would be very less chance for a strong electric field composed of electrons.
There is more probability of finding a strong electric field made by protons.
basically, charge of e- and p+ is same but due to diffference in their masses, they will interact differently with gravity.
Protons might well form conmagulations but that is rare for electrons. thus there might be electron clouds spread out over the critical distances but proper dominated + charged bodies of protons.
this might explain the difficulty in finding e- s.

I've read this post several times czeslaw, and I must confess that I don't understand it.

The biggest flaw in your idea (I think - as I don't really understand your idea, I may be completely off track) is equating particle imbalance in cosmic rays with charge imbalance in regions of our galaxy. For example, any charge imbalance set up by a (net) flow of charged CRs may be restored by a flow of electrons, travelling at speeds slow enough that they are not recorded as CRs when they arrive on the Earth. This would be consistent with plasma physics, in that local regions of net charge are neutralised (in a larger region) by the motion of opposite charges to 'screen' the imbalance.

Another problem with your idea is that the origins of cosmic rays are diverse ... pulsar winds, SNR, SNe, GRB, magnetars, even (perhaps) energetic interactions in binaries where one component is a compact object (white dwarf, neutron star, black hole) ... and different progenitors contribute varying fractions at different CR energies. So, whether this would lead to a net source of +ve CRs in some region of the galaxy or not would depend rather a lot on the relative distributions of the progenitors.

Perhaps you could spend some more time on a) what would maintain a large charge imbalance (across galactic distances), and b ) what electrostatic forces you should expect the Sun (and other solar system bodies) to be subject to (quantitatively)?

Hi Nereid.
I have even more questions in my idea then answers. I can’t solve them alone and I need someone who would like to take an interest in the Dark Matter problem.

A galaxy is very complicate system with many forces and motions. One galaxy has so many stars as has atoms our living cell with DNA nucleus , mitochondria, liquids…. The galaxy is even more complicated because of the differences between stars, Black Holes, magnetars, planets, nebulas, neutral gas, ionized plasma ….

Every star has its structure. For example are the Sun’s spots more charged then the whole Sun surface? What is the Sun’s electrostatic capacity ? Cosmic Rays are absorbed by Sun and the net charge is emitted by Solar Wind. Is the Sun discharged immediately or there is some delay and charge capacity ? How much charge is in Sun’s spots if they have so strong magnetic field ?

The Cosmic Rays may cause an electric current, we see it in Milky Way. If the main sources of the CR are in the galaxy center, this current would be from center to outer parts of the galaxy. CR circle about 8 millions years in galaxy and go into intergalaxy space at least.

A plasma is an electric conductor and it helps to carry a charge but what is the capacity of a neutral hydrogen H1 cloud ? What is the capacity of the whole Solar system ? How strong is the repulsive force of the clouds in galactic halo ?

Double, double, toil and trouble
Fire burn and cauldron bubble

One of the most reknowned Local Volume astrophysicists, Igor Karachentsev, after a prolonged study of the kinematics of local galaxies, made a startling statement recently:

http://arxiv.org/astro-ph/0410065

See his conclusions section. I shall paraphrase: There is NO single-particle DM hypothesis which can account for the Local Volume kinematics.

Dr. K is an arch-conservative whose opinions I respect in these matters. His suggestion is that only 7% of critical density is accounted for by the DM which forms clumpy halos. The remaining required 20% attributed to DM must be some sort which clumps only weakly, in vastly extended halos-- or not at all, forming a primordial ocean of uniform density. I heartily recommend reading his (and his wife's, Ms Karachenkova) entire professional output, to gain a sense of his breadth of knowledge.

There also continue to be various ad hoc schemes to do away with DM entirely-- see this morning's

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507222

We live in interesting times! S

__________________
Ignoramus et ignorabamus.-- Reymond

Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen.--Hilbert

Pick one.

We live in interesting times.
There are so many new phenomenon and even more questions.
Thank you for interesting links.
This second is special for me. I do not exactly understand what is means the problem of explaining X-ray galaxy cluster masses. Does it mean the mass of a X-rays matter , or matter of the clusters emitting X-rays ?

It means the total mass of luminous and non-luminous baryonic matter in the (rich) galaxy clusters. Rich clusters, having 50 or more members, account for only 15% of the critical mass fraction (27% of total energy budget-- .15 X .27 = 4%) of the universe-- the rest is in poor (sparse) clusters and the IGM (loose gas). The phenomenon that the authors are attempting to explain is that in rich clusters, instead of each galaxy having its own gas and DM halo, the cluster is enveloped in a common halo. The observed temperature of the gas component is in the tens of millions of degrees K; hence, the production of X-rays.

I always keep a wary eye on the "fine-tuning" aspect of this sort of theory-- given enough free parameters, they can 'tune in' any sort of observed phenomenon. It may be that the universe is that complicated, but I doubt it.

Prof. Karachentsev's work, on the other hand, has the virtue of simplicity-- and more to the point, it has predictive power! It is much more satisfying somehow to predict the range and distribution of a universal phenomenon in advance, than to explain each individual instance on a case-by-case basis, citing possibility as the justification for each choice.

It's more than an aesthetic choice. I like to tell the story about the caterpillar who, when he was asked how he could possibly manage to control so many legs at once, stopped to think about it-- and never moved again. Theories which are too self-involved, with too many levers and wheels, bells and whistles, are not useful. For instance; M-Theory, which may contain the complete truth, contains a lot else, besides. It's "not even wrong", yet.

I don't say that Dr. K has the final answer. I think that there are (several) more types of DM which will become explicable when Big Bang Theory and particle physics become reconciled.

Sorry about the rant--I got started thinking about my decision-making process and ...

__________________
Ignoramus et ignorabamus.-- Reymond

Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen.--Hilbert

Pick one.

Steve,

I don't have the numbers to hand ... could you please remind us, what is the proportion of the 'matter' component of the universe (i.e. not the photons or DE) - per the concordance model of cosmology? What proportion of this matter component do 'all rich clusters' amount to?

As to 'fine tuning', don't you think it important to mention that at least three lines of indepedent observation arrive at approx the same answer - the baryonic mass component of rich clusters is approx 15% of the total cluster mass?

The sets of observations are:
- gravitational lensing - underlying physics is General Relativity
- X-ray intensity and X-ray spectra (cluster IGM) - underlying physics is Newtonian kinematics
- 'velocity dispersion' of galaxy members (Virial Theorem) - ditto
- Sunyaez-Zel'dovich effect - underlying physics is the Compton effect.

That there are rather too few detailed observations of rich clusters is acknowledged; how many such clusters do you think we should observe, in detail, to nail down the existence of DM in rich clusters?

Kind Regards
Nereid

There is something with a gravity inside the galaxy clusters. Many peoples call it Dark Matter.

I would like to search a baryonic matter with a special properties that shows the some effects as Dark Matter.
A lensing indicates some heavy elements but is it possible to measure it correct how much is it by this lensing only?
The baryonic matter attracts gravitationally , electrostatic attract and repulse, is electromagnetic driven. Are all of these interactions good searched? The nonbaryonic matter is known as neutrino only. Every other nonbaryonic particles live very short and we can not find them in the space.
A nonbaryonic matter weakly interacting would be in the Cosmic Voids as well .

Everything is in a hierarchic system and there is possible an interaction on galactic scale but consists of the gravity, electrostatic and electromagnetic only. In such an huge almost empty space a tiny gas interact with very strong force.

Dark Matter is a problem which we can solve by known interactions and particles, searching their complicate combinations in its hierarchic scale, I think.

Nereid:

Dr. K's assumption set included:

H-sub-0 = 72 Km/Mpc (Hubble parameter)

Omega-sub-M = .27 (matter fraction of total universe energy)

T-sub-H = 13.7 GYr (age of universe)

A linear relationship between the presence of luminous matter and the presence of dark matter. (Your ratio .15/.85 will work just fine here.)

His conclusions were:

Rich clusters contribute .03-.04 (baryonic plus DM)

Sparse clusters (groups) contribute .03-.04 (baryonic plus DM)

Their sum is .06-.08, leaving .19-.21 unaccounted for, which he ascribes to a second, non-clumping variety of DM.

The paper did not address the precise ratio of matter to DM at all. It was entirely based on the dynamics of the well-observed Local Volume-- the virial theorem applied to the observed dispersion of radial velocities-- to derive the mass-to luminosity relationship for sparse clusters, and groups within the clusters.

He cited other work, based on lensing vs.observed brightness for the corresponding relationship for rich clusters.

All else follows from the assumption of a linear association between clumpy DM and baryonic matter.

He did not go so far as to champion a particular candidate particle for the non-clumping DM (e.g., thermal neutrinos, gravitinos, etc.).

In case you hadn't noticed, I gave short shrift to the paper claiming to discount DM entirely. I am fully agnostic with respect to the precise nature of and relative abundance of the various things dumped into the grab-bag of stuff called DM. I only demand that the books balance with a minimal assumption set. Karachentsev seems to have accomplished that much, at least, and so I am personally convinced that there are at least two genera of DM. There may be more. I hope to live long enough to see the particular species identified, at which point they will no longer be so dark.

As to the statistical significance of the precision of our knowledge WRT rich clusters-- the error bars are determined by whatever standard candle has been used to fix the distances, typically a binary order of magnitude. The local volume is better-constrained by distance estimates based on resolved stars-- typically, Tip of the Red Giant Branch, Cepheid, and RR Lyrae estimates are used, with errors in the 3-10% range. Best regards-- Steve

__________________
Ignoramus et ignorabamus.-- Reymond

Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen.--Hilbert

Pick one.

I do not believe, there is a mysterious Dark Matter. It is possible a new very short range and short living particle in sub atomic scale but in Cosmic scale every long living particle would be easy to detect, I think.

The neutrino is one particle weakly interacting and may be, there are some combinations of the oscillating flavours of neutrino. There are plenty neutrinos in cosmic space, even in Cosmic Voids.
In such a Cosmic Void are neutrinos only, I think. How behave such a Neutrino Currents in a distances of billions years? We observe electron, muon, taon neutrinos on the Earth. Are not there a different flavours in huge empty space?

How behave the neutrinos coming to the border of the galaxy?
My idea is -
a photon do compress (warps) and expands the space according to its frequency, rest mass particle compress and expands less then compress, neutrino expands the space balancing the whole expansion.
That way a Cosmic Void full of expanding neutrinos would press like Dark Energy on the Galaxy Clusters and Galaxy as well.
More particles decay, more neutrinos in the larger Cosmic Voids and stronger Dark Energy of the neutrinos in longer distances.