=====
Consider the following in your work:


Dark Matter Illuminated

There is considerable interest, need, and effort involved in identifying the
Dark Matter that is assumed to exist in massive amounts in the universe.

Actually, according to my intuition, insight, and analysis, there is no need for Dark Matter. The apparent need exists when Newton's law of gravity is applied outside our solar system. It is unable to explain the observed flat velocity rotation curves in spiral galaxies without introducing Dark Matter.

There is no observational proof that Newton's laws are also valid for the
universe or for distances larger than for our solar system. In fact the galactic
observations question Newton's original law of gravity at large distances and
suggest a simple extension. Newton's law and gravitational constant were shown
to be valid but only based upon astronomical observations and subsequent
laboratory experiments in our solar system.

The observed flat rotational velocity curves of stars at the edges of spiral
galaxies as reported by Vera Rubin and others could only be explained by massive
amounts of invisible, "dark" matter IF it could be assumed that Newton's law of
gravity was also valid at large galactic distances.

Much earlier, (over 7 decades earlier), the very capable and under appreciated
Fritz Zwicky suggested the existence of much missing matter to explain his
observations of motion of groups of galaxies (involving kinetic and
gravitational potential energy), using the assumption of the validity of
Newton's laws at large distances, in accord with the accepted belief of the
scientific community at that time (and also at the present time).

Actually if we extend Newton's gravitational constant G by the addition of a
term linear in distance r, the galactic observations can be easily explained
without the need to assume the existence of Dark Matter. This additional
component of the gravitational constant is only observable or needed at
distances much, much larger than the dimensions of our solar system - about the
size of spiral galaxies, around 5 kilo parsec.

This extension of Newton's law is different from the MOND theory of Martin
Milgrom, which involves acceleration.

Briefly, the inward gravitational force on a mass, m, will balance the outward
force due to the rotation of outer stars in a spiral galaxy. The outward force
is m*v*v/r where v is the velocity of a star with mass, m, rotating at a
distance, r, from the center of the galaxy mass M. The gravitational inward
force on the rotating mass, m, is m*M*G/(r*r) where G is Newton's gravitational
constant.

Thus: m*M*G/(r*r) = m*v*v/r

This reduces to: M*G = v*v*r

In the outer edges of spiral galaxies Newton's law predicts that the velocity
should decrease inversely as the square root of distance r - instead of the
observed flat velocity rotation curves where the rotation velocity, v, is
constant and independent of r.

Because of the observed flat rotational velocity of outer stars in galaxies (by
Vera Rubin and others, using red shift observations) and if we make the usual
assumption that the solar system gravitational constant is also valid at
galactic scales, the result is a need for the mass to increase linearly with
distance at the outer location of these spiral galaxies even if there are no
stars visible there.

There are no visible stars corresponding to the supposed extra mass and this
mass is called Dark Matter. This Dark Matter shows its supposed existence by the
gravitational effects, but surprisingly does not eclipse visible stars, nor does
not reflect light from nearby stars (like the moon and our sun). Calculations
show that a massive amount of Dark Matter is required to explain the
observations. All sorts of entities with mass are postulated such as but not
limited to Wimps, Machos, and Strings, to meet the need for Dark Matter.

Note that under the standard theory of Dark Matter the concept of a belt or halo
of Dark Matter OUTSIDE the galaxy is not consistent because Dark Matter would
only be needed in the visible region of flat rotation velocities.

The search for Dark Matter can be ended if we use the above equations to justify
an extension of Newton's gravitational constant Gn to a new Ge that includes a
component that increases linearly with distance r.

Thus: Ge = Gn + A*r

where the coefficient A can be estimated from the radius Ro where there is the
start of the flat rotation curves. For spiral galaxies studied the value of Ro
is about 5 kilo parsecs, and A is about Gn/Ro. This extended model reduces to
Newton's law in our solar system (small r) and is only apparent at cosmic
distances.

My extended theory of the gravitational constant explains the apparent Dark
Matter and has implications affecting the concepts of the red shift, the
expanding universe, dark energy, the CMB, and the Big Bang. These will be
discussed in future comments on other theories.

# # #

Sol Aisenberg, Ph.D.
Tel: 508.651.0140
36 Bradford Road, Natick, MA 01760 USA
itgplus@earthlink.net
http://inventing-solutions.com

Until dark matter is actually detected experimentally, I suppose one theory is nearly as good as another to explain the unexpectedly high rotational velocities described by Vera Rubin. I admit that mainstream cosmology appeared to take a swing into the pseudo-science realm to the casual observer by invoking dark matter (and dark energy more recently) despite a persistent lack of direct experimental evidence.
But there is more to the dark matter argument than just the rotational velocity problem. With regards to the current article, what alternative explanation would you propose for the lensing distortion effect that the Hopkins group claims to have discovered?

__________________
Quid hoc ad aeternitatum
The conversion of complex and abstract ideas into simple and concrete ones is the essential function of teacher of a body of knowledge.

Dark matter and the red shift are connected.

The attempt to extend Newtin's laws, unextended at cosmic distances led to the false need for dark matter.

The failure to recognize that the red shift has three additional components caused only by gravity led to the unsupported belief that the universe is expanding.

See the details below.

The Red Shift Does Not Prove The Expansion Of The Universe or The Big Bang

The work of Hubble and the observed red shifts were used to support the belief that the universe is apparently expanding. His work showed that the red shift had a linear dependence on distance. It was assumed that the red shift was due to the Doppler effect.

While Hubble measured red shifts as a function of measured distances, Hubble himself initially used the term "apparent velocity" in connection with the red shift. In turn, this was assumed to prove that the universe was expanding ­ in all directions.

The work of Saul Perlmutter and others is cited to show that the expansion of the universe is apparently accelerating and thus introduced the need for dark energy.

The support for the expansion of the universe is based upon the determination of distance of standard stars (super nova Type Ia) by the relative light energy received from these stars.

However, the distances are also determined from the measured red shifts and the Hubble constant. Initially Hubble determined the distances of red shift stars by measurements using nearby calibrated stars. The Hubble constant together with observed red shifts is used to calculate distances for stars that are much further away, by assuming that the linear relationship is also valid for very remote stars.

Because some of the very remote stars are more faint than expected from the red shift data it was suggested that these remote stars are further away than expected from the red shift data.

Thus it was explained that these remote stars are moving faster than expected (an acceleration of the expansion) and thus introduces the need for dark energy to power the acceleration.

However, the errors in the conclusions are caused by not understanding that there are THREE other contributions to the red shift that depend upon gravity in addition to the Doppler shift contribution. One gravity contribution is a function of the log of distance, is linear for shorter distances, but shows the non-linear component at very large distances where the apparent acceleration of the supposed expansion appears.

One of the red shift, energy loss components depends upon distance including gravitational drag by gas and dust in long distance travel through interstellar space. This is similar to the loss of energy from the moon due to the effect of the moon and gravity on Earth tides.

The photons traveling distances large enough to drop energy to the microwave range also come into thermal equilibrium with the very low temperature of interstellar gas and dust. This explains the cosmic microwave background and the uniform low temperature from all directions.

The loss of photon energy dropping below the visible range explains Olber

[previous contribution was truncated.]

By the way, gravitational lensing is caused by the extended term in the gravitational constant and there is no need for dark matter to provide this gravitational contribution.

Zwicky (who was brilliant and not really appreciated) earlier in the 1900's observed the motion of groups of galaxies and concluded that there was much missing (invisible) matter.

I think that one is wasting time in trying to find dark matter.

Advisor7's comments and responses thereto have been moved here from this thread. Please continue the discussion on this topic here.

(Note to advisor7: This is how non-mainstream views should be handled on this board - expression of unconventional theories on any forum but this one ("Against the Mainstream") is very strongly frowned upon. Meanwhile, I am willing to change the thread title to whatever you think appropriate. PM me or request here for a change.)

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Welcome to BAUT, Advisor7!

Have you published your idea, in a journal such as ApJ? If so, would you please provide a reference?

Also, as you know, the vast majority of the universe's DM seems to be in rich clusters, not in spiral galaxies (this was the nut which MOND couldn't crack, although some extensions of MOND seem to have cracked it). How does your idea account for the three sets of independent observations pointing to rich cluster DM?

Please note that Advisor7 has posted here before, back in the UT days. I think that he posted as a non-member, so his post will be harder to find.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak