Science Forums

Why are we so sure that there is a need for dark matter?

Recommended Posts

Let's assume that long time ago there was just one spiral galaxy with her daughter in the empty & infinite Universe.

Let's call this Spiral galaxy - SG, while her daughter spiral galaxy would be called - SG1

T - The time that it took Triangulum to transform from a new born BH at the inner reign of Andromeda to real spiral galaxy with the ability to generate its first baby BH.

V - the velocity that Triangulum is moving away from its mother galaxy.

There was nothing in the empty universe except of those two galaxies.

After the first T time, SG1 would have a new spiral galaxy daughter that is called SG2.

After the second T time, SG2 would have a new spiral galaxy daughter that is called SG3.

After n times T time, SGn-1 would have a new spiral galaxy daughter that is called SGn.

SG1 is the first generation of SG.

SGn is the n generation of SG.

I call this scenario as galaxy over galaxy (rocket over rocket or train over train)

Let's assume that all the new born galaxies are moving exactly at the same direction (As SG1 from SG).

By Using the classical (Galilean) formula the n generation galaxy (SPn) is moving away from the main mother galaxy (SP) at a velocity which is equivalent to n*V.

However, Due to relativity, it can't move faster than the speed of light relative to SP.

In following image we see train over train:

In this case, A is SP (Mother galaxy), B is the first-generation galaxy SP1 and C is SP2.

"The question posed is — What is the relative velocity of C with respect to A?

Using classical (Galilean) formula for relative velocity, we would get —

Hence,

v(B, A) = 0.75c

v(C, B) = 0.75c

v(C, A) = v(B, A) + v(C, B) = 0.75c + 0.75c = 1.5c

That is — to A, C would seem to be travelling at a velocity greater than that of light! But surely that can’t be possible, right? It would breach the well established result which dictates no object can travel with speed greater than that of light.

So, where lies the problem? Did we go wrong with our calculations somewhere? The answer, it turns out, resides within Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity.

The formula for velocity addition in the relativistic world is as follow:

v(C, A) = (v(B, A) + v(C, B)) / (1+ (v(C, A) + v(B, A))/c^2) = 24/25c "

Therefore, even if due to Galilean formula the last galaxy generation SPn should move away from SP at 10 times the speed of light, due to Einstein relativity law if we stay at SP we should still see it.

That exactly what we see in our real Universe.

"Hubble found that the farther a galaxy is, the faster it appears to be moving away from us."

Therefore, based on this simple explanation that is called Galaxy over galaxy, we can perfectly understand the observation without any need for any sort of expansion or inflation in space.

In any location that we will be in the Universe - we will see exactly the same view.

However, in order to achieve that goal, the universe age must be quite old.

If we assume that the universe is infinite in its size, then it also must be infinite in its age.

Edited by Dandav

• Replies 114
• Created

Posted Images

The CMBR is the radiation of our current infinite universe.

I can explain the black body spectrum and the temp/energy, unfortunately it seems that there is no fit with the redshift fixed value as follow:

The cosmic microwave background (CMB, CMBR) is microwave radiation that fills all space

" a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope detects a faint background glow that is almost uniform and is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum."

Key features of the CMBR:

1. black body spectrum:

Graph of cosmic microwave background spectrum measured by the FIRAS instrument on the COBE, the most precisely measured black body spectrum in nature.[9] The error bars are too small to be seen even in an enlarged image, and it is impossible to distinguish the observed data from the theoretical curve.

I can easily show that this black body spectrum proves that the universe is infinite.

2. Temp & energy

The CMB has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057 K.[

"The energy density of the CMB is 0.260 eV/cm3 (4.17×10−14 J/m3) which yields about 411 photons/cm3.[20]

The temp and energy give an indication for the density of matter in the infinite universe

3. redshift of around z ⋍ 1100.[84]

I would expet to get a wide range of redshift spectrum and not just one fixed value.

That redshift of 1100 is OK as long as it just the peak of the redshift spectrum.

Our sciemtists calim that:

" The spectral radiance dEν/ peaks at 160.23 GHz, in the microwave range of frequencies, corresponding to a photon energy of about 6.626×10−4 eV. "

Hence, as there is a peak in the microwave range of frequencies, it is expected to get a peak in the redshift.

However, if our scientists can only detect just one fixed redshift value which is ONLY - 1100 then it indicates that there is an error in my explanation.

Any idea about the real value of the redshift?

Is there any possibility that we detect a wide spectrum of redshift in the CMBR and not just one fixed value?

Edited by Dandav
Share on other sites

The broadest wavelength of the Cmbr has to do with tidal forces at this distance from the milky ways black hole.

There is one galaxy missing a central smbh, I purport there is one at the center, it just hasn't came into contact with enough black body radiation to produce a cmbr there probably.

The only way to know for sure is to go to that galaxy and scan its cmb but we could but do not have a craft that fast, nor could we make enough antimatter to propel it that long with current am production means even if we could get the mechanical engineering of an alcubierre drive right.

I could help with that but nobody listens to me anymore.

Edited by JeffreysTubes8
Share on other sites

CMBR - Redshift

I have just found an excellent explanation about the CMBR redshift

It is stated:

What is the redshift of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)?

"Mark asked how we know the redshift of the CMB if it has no emission or absorption lines, which is the usual way to determine redshifts of e.g. stars and galaxies."

So, there is no emission or absorption lines in the CMBR and therefore there is no way to extract the redshift value from the CMBR data.

However, our scientists used their understanding about the Big Bang theory in order to create a formula for the redshift:

1. The requested temp that is needed to for the electrons to finally combine with the protons and form neutral hydrogen. That temp is estimated for 3,000K

"as the Universe expands, the temperature just decreases in inverse proportion to its size. Double the size of the Universe, and the temperature will halve.

When the Universe had cooled to about 3,000K it was cool enough for the electrons to finally combine with the protons and form neutral hydrogen. At this temperature the photons were not energetic enough to ionise any hydrogen atoms, and the electrons had lost enough thermal energy that they too could not ionise electrons bound to protons. Finally, for the first time in the Universe’s history, neutral hydrogen atoms could form."

2. The current CMBR temp:

"so, the blackbody produced at the time of decoupling will have retained its blackbody spectrum through to the current epoch. But, because the Universe has expanded, the peak of the spectrum will have been stretched by the expansion of space (so it is not correct to think of the CMB spectrum as having cooled down, rather than space has expanded and stretched its peak emission to a lower temperature). The peak of a blackbody spectrum is related to its temperature in a very precise way, it is given by Wien’s displacement law,

"In 1990 the FIRAS instrument on the NASA satellite COBE (COsmic Background Explorer) measured the spectrum of the CMB to high precision, and found it to be currently at a temperature of  (as an aside, the spectrum measured by FIRAS was the most perfect blackbody spectrum ever observed in nature)."

3. The redshift formula

"It is thus easy to calculate the current redshift of the CMB, it is given by

$z \text{ (redshift)} = \frac{3000}{2.725} = 1100$

and “voilà”, that is the redshift of the CMB.  Simples"

Sorry, there is no need for any sort of expansion in our universe.

We only observe the expansion in the galaxies and not any expansion in the space itself.

Remember - whatever we see is whatever we have!

I have clearly explained this galaxies expansion mechanism by galaxy over galaxy generations.

The Black body radiation of the CMBR PROVES that we are living in an infinite universe which its age is also infinite.

The current calculated redshift value is a direct product of the BBT idea.

Therefore, if that BBT is not fully correct, then this fixed calculated redshift value is also incorrect.

The simple and clear message that:

"the redshift of the CMB if it has no emission or absorption lines" is fully correlated with my explanation.

We get the CMBR from all the stars/galaxies/matter in the entire infinite universe around us. Therefore, it is expected to observe wide spectrum of redshift in the CMBR radiation. As each photon/radiation might come from different distance it is impossible to distinguish between the redshift of each photon. Therefore, we actually can't see any sort of emission or absorption lines in the CMBR.

Hence, so far, all the observations including the missing redshift in the CMBR data fully correlated with my explanation.

I offer a solution which fits the observations by 100%, no less than that!

Edited by Dandav
Share on other sites

Missing redshift in the CMBR

If it is correct that: "the redshift of the CMB has no emission or absorption lines" then we all must agree that in the CMBR data there is no redshift at all.

However, based on the BBT theory the calculated redshift should be 1100.

I wonder how anyone can claim that the redshift value of the CMBR is 1100 while now we understand that it is just incorrect.

They have to highlight the contradiction between the calculated/expectation redshift based on the BBT to the verification/observation based on real data of the CMBR.

As there is no fit between this calculated value to the real redshift data in the CMBR it proves that there is a severe problem with the BBT.

Edited by Dandav
Share on other sites

Recombination

"When the Universe had cooled to about 3,000K it was cool enough for the electrons to finally combine with the protons and form neutral hydrogen. At this temperature the photons were not energetic enough to ionise any hydrogen atoms, and the electrons had lost enough thermal energy that they too could not ionise electrons bound to protons. Finally, for the first time in the Universe’s history, neutral hydrogen atoms could form.

For reasons that I have never properly understood, astronomers and cosmologists tend to call this event recombination, although really it was combination, without the ‘re’ as it was happening for the first time. A term I prefer more is decoupling, it is when matter and radiation in the Universe decoupled, and the radiation was free to travel through the Universe. Before decoupling, the photons could not travel very far before they scattered off free electrons; after decoupling they were free to travel and this is the radiation we see as the CMB. "

Why the above recombination process is not realistic:

1. Electron creation:

Electron has electric charge. Therefore, as I have already explained there is no way to create an electron (or any charged particle) without real source of electric charge.

Electromagnetic energy is the ONLY valid source in the nature for electric charge.

The BBT doesn't offer any real source of EM energy. Therefore, it is not realistic to hope that the Big Bang can create even a single electron.

2. Pair annihilation

Even if the BBT could offer EM energy and somehow create electron/quark/boson, there is still a problem with annihilation process. any new created particle must come with its antiparticle. Therefore, somehow there is a need for force to split the pair before the annihilation process:

"According to quantum mechanics, particle pairs are constantly appearing and disappearing as a quantum foam. In a region of strong gravitational tidal forces, the two particles in a pair may sometimes be wrenched apart before they have a chance to mutually annihilate. When this happens in the region around a black hole, one particle may escape while its antiparticle partner is captured by the black hole."

After the Big Bang there was no strong gravitational & tidal forces no BH and no EM source of energy. Therefore, any pair that popped up would mutually annihilate.

Not one pair of a million and not one of a trillion could escape from this mutually annihilate process.

Lorenz force is the ONLY valid force that can split between the new born charged particle/antiparticle pair. However, Lorentz force can only work under EM field/Energy.

3. Gluon

I have already introduced the high similarity between the fluctuation of the Gluon to the EM field fluctuation.

On 1/13/2023 at 12:56 PM, Dandav said:

The gluon has fluctuations:

However, a similar fluctuation exists also in EM radiation:

"The wave fluctuations are here recalculated for a quantized electromagnetic field, and it is shown that the
result coincides with th6 statistical formula as far as can be expected, provided one overlooks the divergence of the zero energy. "

Therefore, the Gluon should be considered as some sort of EM energy that is locked in the proton and contributes more than 99% from its mass.

4. Atom

Based on all the above, Atom should be considered as a cell of EM energy. Without real source of EM energy there is no way to get even one atom in the entire Universe. The Atom mass is based on EM energy.

5. Recombination

As the BBT doesn't offer real source of EM energy, it can't create any atom at any temp. Therefore, the recombination idea is just not realistic.

Edited by Dandav
Share on other sites

E = mc2

"E = m c2, equation in German-born physicist Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity that expresses the fact that mass and energy are the same physical entity and can be changed into each other. In the equation, the increased relativistic mass (m) of a body times the speed of light squared (c2) is equal to the kinetic energy (E) of that body."

I have proved that Atom mass is based on EM energy = E(em).

Hence, without E(em) there is no atom and no mass.

Therefore, the correct formula for any Atom / particle mass should be as follow:

m = E(em) / c2

However, when we extract that E(em) energy from the Atom mass (in atomic bomb or in the fusion activity at the sun), it is transformed into kinetic energy.

Therefore, the kinetic energy of the body is:

E = mc2

Edited by Dandav
Share on other sites

Gravity force

The gravity force formula is as follow:

F= G m1 m2 / r2

However, the Atom mass is based on EM energy = E(em).

On 1/26/2023 at 7:34 AM, Dandav said:

the correct formula for any Atom / particle mass should be as follow:

m = E(em) / c2

Hence,

m1 = E1(em) / c2

m2 = E2(em) / c2

F = G * ( E1(em) / c2 * E2(em) / c2 ) / r2

F = G * ( E1(em) * E2(em) ) / (r*c)2

Therefore. gravity force is a direct outcome from the EM energy/force in the mass.

Hence, Gravity force is a sub-EM force!

Take out the EM energy from the Atom and you have no mass in that Atom and no gravity.

Edited by Dandav
Share on other sites

Dark matter:

We can't see the dark matter as it has no EM energy.

It there was any EM energy in that dark matter, it was expected to detect its radiation.

I have just proved that gravity works only on mass that have real EM energy.

Even if there was a dark matter, then this matter won't have any EM energy and any mass.  Therefore, it can't set any gravity force on real mass!

Hence, the idea that dark matter (without EM energy / radiation) can set gravity force of real mass - is just not realistic.

Share on other sites

strong force

"The strong interaction or strong force is a fundamental interaction that confines quarks into proton, neutron, and other hadron particles. The strong interaction also binds neutrons and protons to create atomic nuclei, where it is called the nuclear force.

Most of the mass of a common proton or neutron is the result of the strong interaction energy; the individual quarks provide only about 1% of the mass of a proton. At the range of 10−15 m (slightly more than the radius of a nucleon), the strong force is approximately 100 times as strong as electromagnetism, 106 times as strong as the weak interaction, and 1038 times as strong as gravitation.[1]

The strong interaction is observable at two ranges and mediated by two force carriers. On a larger scale (of about 1 to 3 fm), it is the force (carried by mesons) that binds protons and neutrons (nucleons) together to form the nucleus of an atom. On the smaller scale (less than about 0.8 fm, the radius of a nucleon), it is the force (carried by gluons) that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons, and other hadron particles."

The strong force is the gluon that binds the tree quarks into one proton.

That gluon acts as EM cell.

On 1/26/2023 at 5:43 AM, Dandav said:

3. Gluon

I have already introduced the high similarity between the fluctuation of the Gluon to the EM field fluctuation.

On 1/13/2023 at 12:56 PM, Dandav said:

The gluon has fluctuations:

However, a similar fluctuation exists also in EM radiation:

"The wave fluctuations are here recalculated for a quantized electromagnetic field, and it is shown that the
result coincides with th6 statistical formula as far as can be expected, provided one overlooks the divergence of the zero energy. "

Expand

Therefore, the Gluon should be considered as some sort of EM energy that is locked in the proton and contributes more than 99% from its mass.

Therefore, the strong force should also be considered as a Sub-EM force

Edited by Dandav
Share on other sites

Weak force

The weak force is one of the four fundamental forces that govern all matter in the universe (the other three are gravity, electromagnetism and the strong force). While the other forces hold things together, the weak force plays a greater role in things falling apart, or decaying.

The weak force, or weak interaction, is stronger than gravity, but it is only effective at very short distances

W bosons are electrically charged and are designated by their symbols: W+ (positively charged) and W (negatively charged). The W boson changes the makeup of particles. By emitting an electrically charged W boson, the weak force changes the flavor of a quark, which causes a proton to change into a neutron, or vice versa.

Experiments to find W and Z bosons led to a theory combining the electromagnetic force and the weak force into a unified "electroweak" force in the 1960s.

Therefore, the weak force which works on electrically charged particles should also be considered as a Sub-EM force

"The four fundamental forces act upon us every day, whether we realize it or not. From playing basketball, to launching a rocket into space, to sticking a magnet on your refrigerator - all the forces that all of us experience every day can be whittled down to a critical quartet: Gravity, the weak force, electromagnetism, and the strong force. These forces govern everything that happens in the universe.

I claim that there is only One fundamental force in the Universe

That force is Electromagnetism force.

All the three other forces: Gravity, the weak force and the strong force are Sub-Electromagnetism force.

Edited by Dandav
Share on other sites

Plasma

Quark–gluon plasma (QGP) or quark soup is an interacting localized assembly of quarks and gluons at thermal (local kinetic) and (close to) chemical (abundance) equilibrium. The word plasma signals that free color charges are allowed. In a 1987 summary, Léon van Hove pointed out the equivalence of the three terms: quark gluon plasma, quark matter and a new state of matter.

Quark–gluon plasma[17][18] was detected for the first time in the laboratory at CERN in the year 2000.[19][20][21]

In the Big Bang theory, quark–gluon plasma filled the entire Universe before matter as we know it was created

Sorry, there is no need for the Big Bang for that quark–gluon plasma

The plasma is there Infront of our eyes in the accretion disc:

Accretion is one of the most fundamental processes in the cosmos.

Accretion is the inevitable result of gravitational forces operating on all scales, and on all types of material — gas, dust, plasma, even dark matter.

Telescope is the hot, glowing plasma in the accretion disk surrounding it.

Therefore, our scientists clearly see the plasma in the accretion disc.

That plasma is exactly the same Quark–gluon plasma (QGP) or quark soup that is an interacting localized assembly of quarks and gluons at thermal (local kinetic) and (close to) chemical (abundance) equilibrium.

Based on that Quark–gluon plasma (QGP) or quark soup in the accretion disc new atoms and molecular are created by the mighty power of the SMBH EM force.

Our scientists wish to believe that the accretion disc accretes stars and clouds:

"But this changes when a collapsing cloud heats up and begins to generate plasma. Because plasma is electrically charged, it is linked to the magnetic field: As it moves, it drags the magnetic field lines with it. As the cloud collapses further and begins to form an accretion disk, the magnetic field becomes wound up by the disk’s rotation. The magnetic field also becomes stronger as the field lines bunch together."

Unfortunately, they are totally wrong. Nothing really falls at the accretion disc from outside.

However, they are fully correct in the following message:

"Accretion creates everything there is: galaxies, stars, planets, and eventually, us. It is the reason the universe is filled with a whole bunch of somethings instead of a whole lot of nothing."

The fact that matter tends to glom together may seem intuitive. But to scientists, accretion remains a mysterious topic, filled with unanswered questions:

For instance: Why do some stellar nurseries form a few massive stars instead of lots of smaller ones? What causes so much accreting material to ultimately fall inward onto its central object, instead of just circling it forever? And how do space rocks ultimately stick together to form planets instead of just bouncing off each other?

No one knows the definitive answers to any of these questions yet, but there are some theories gaining traction — and evidence.

Yes, I know the answer and I have introduced the evidences

The SMBH' accretion disc is the place where new molecules are created by the mighty EM force of the SMBH.

Those molecules would be ejected outwards from the outer edge of the accretion disc:

"All of these magnetic field lines then act as highways for plasma to escape the strong magnetic field: Following the field lines, the charged particles zip away from the accretion disk into space. This MHD wind carries angular momentum away from the disk — and this, astronomers suspect, helps the cloud collapse into a star."

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.