Thread: Observations contradict "Dark Matter" hypothesis

It seems that alternatives to "Dark Matter" explaining the gravitational anomalies start to merge into mainstream astrophysics. Even well respected scientists begin to doubt this hypothesis and favour modifications of the gravitational law. Here are two mostly identical press releases from two astrophysical research facilities of a group of scientists, who think that their observations contradict the "Dark Matter" approach, but rather explain their results in terms of a necessary modification of the laws of physics that we know today.

Pavel Kroupa, University Bonn, Germany
Gerhard Hensler, University Vienna, Austria

The basic result is that the distribution of Dwarf Galaxies around the Milky Way galaxy points to a specific creation process of these galaxies. It seems that they should not contain any Dark Matter, but still show the same anomalies like the large ones.

Does this tie in with the Pioneer anomaly?

Dish

You may have read my explanation of the dark matter problem.
If not than I have written that DM does not exist!

I solved this problem when I read an artice in S & T magazine about a gigantic flare that caused the stripping of 3 elements of their electrons except the 2 inner electrons .
These residual positive ions were detected by Solar Max (Xray Satellite) and one of them was the oxygen component.
So it is plainly obvious that that flare was an explosion of hydrogen and oxygen.
This would aso explain were all the water comes from.

So all these electrons were blasted out of the Sun and into space.

So I concluded that the Zwicky Dark Matter is the result of separated electric charges that enhance the gravitational forces.

So in the galaxy cluster stars, all the stars are blasting out electrons in all directions around them.
But the electrons balsted out to the center of these clusters are approaching from all dorections. So in the centers, the electrons approaching toward each other, stop and accumulate to form a cloud of electrons.
This cloud than attracts the galaxies toward itself to enhance the gravity.
So this electric attraction enhances the gravity to create the illusion that their is additional mass.

And this mass is not invisible because it has been detected by x-rays!.

Cosmo

Dark Matter may or may not exist, no one knows for sure until its found.

But if you want to say that Dark matter does not exist, then how do you explain when galaxies spin faster than the amount of visible matter available? I hope you do not explain it by saying its some kind of mathematical flaw or that the light observed is partially obscured by interstellar dust.

Originally Posted by Cytosine12

Dark Matter may or may not exist, no one knows for sure until its found.

But if you want to say that Dark matter does not exist, then how do you explain when galaxies spin faster than the amount of visible matter available? I hope you do not explain it by saying its some kind of mathematical flaw or that the light observed is partially obscured by interstellar dust.

Did you read my post above?
Opposite electric charges also attract. And there are multiple billions of free electrons and a slightly lesser amount of free protons.

So as I said, the DM does not exist because these free electrons existed in another source and that is the stars.

Cosmo

This is currently discussed in the Physics section:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/Why-w...out-18397t.php

Different charges don't work. Some bodies would need to repel themselves, because they are charged equally. So, you would expect also repelling effects, even more so, if you assume that the charges would be separated by as much as you imply. If all the electrons would gather up in a ring around a positive nucleus, these electrons - in particular the ones at the outer edge - would eventually disperse and even amplify the effect that is caused by the centrifugal force. If you had a cloud of electrons, the outer electrons would not feel the positive charges in the centre anymore. They would not be bound by electricity.

The detection of ions does not imply a process you are proposing. Ions can be produced by many things. Since the sun is mostly composed of ions, it is not a big wonder that during an outburst those ions are expelled into space. Furthermore, the temperature of the corona is millions of degrees, so ions are a natural result of the environment, too. In addition, how can ions produce water? Water is a product of neutral atoms. Do you have any reference to measurements that detected water in the inner regions of the solar system? Also, you must demonstrate that the electric forces are big enough to cause any measurable additional force. At least in the solar system, all the planetary orbits are in very good agreement with the laws of Kepler and Newton; no additional electric force required here.

As a matter of fact, I am also quite sceptical about the Dark Matter, but for a very different reason than you are.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

As a matter of fact, I am also quite sceptical about the Dark Matter, but for a very different reason than you are.

Why are u skeptical about dark matter...just trying to learn as much as possible on the subject, ur view would be appreciated

Originally Posted by Always.Asking

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

As a matter of fact, I am also quite sceptical about the Dark Matter, but for a very different reason than you are.

Why are u skeptical about dark matter...just trying to learn as much as possible on the subject, ur view would be appreciated

It reminds me of the invention of the "ether" that was postulated in order to have a medium for the electromagnetic radiation to propagate. You must know that initially "Dark Matter" was not necessarily something exotic, but could have been ordinary matter that was just too "dark" to see. The mass of galaxies, for instance, was for a long time considered identical of the mass of the stars contained. But that was apparently not true. So, it was logical that there must have been more matter than we could easily detect. But there is a consensus now that all the missing matter cannot be accounted for by normal matter as we know it. In order to save the initial hypothesis, it was then speculated that an odd kind of matter might exist that only interacts gravitationally, but not electromagnetically. This sounds pretty weird to me, although I have to admit that many measurements seem to support this possibility. But it gets even worse: While on lower scales (galaxies) there seems to be too little mass to produce a gravitational effect of attraction, on large scale the situation is quite the opposite. A repelling force is required to overcome the attractive effect of gravitation that is called "Dark Energy" in order to allow for the (accelerated?) expansion of the universe. To me this seems to be like curing a disease with a new and even bigger disease. I just don't like that. So, I am very much interested in approaches of modified gravitational laws. Even a simplistic ad-hoc assumption modifying the Newtonian approximation of gravitation can describe many effects that are usually attributed to Dark Matter just as good, sometimes even better. Although I think that such an approach is too simplistic to be correct, I have a feeling that this might be the correct direction, although maybe by different means. There are a couple of promising modifications to General Relativity that could explain much of the phenomena that are typically related to Dark Matter. Naturally, they include lots of very advanced math, so it is difficult for anyone not familiar with it to judge their credibility. I guess, we will have to wait and see, what predictions will result from those enterprises that could be tested by measurements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifie...onian_dynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STVG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor-...scalar_gravity

“The physicists do belief that this phenomenon can only be explained if the satellites were created a long time ago through collisions between younger galaxies.”

We also know that some galaxies form directly from collapsing clouds of hydrogen. So if the 11 dwarf galaxies they studied are this type and not fragments from collisions, then they would still have their original DM, which certainly seems to be the case.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006...rk_Matter.html
http://www.uslhc.us/LHC_Science/Ques...se/Dark_Matter

This is exactly the point. The scientists of the study I quoted find a distribution of those dwarf galaxies that point to an origin without DM. The thing is, that some scientists are bolder than others; some scientists are more careful than others. While some tend to sell their interpretations as facts, others admit that their interpretation is only one of a number of possibilities. From all that I have learned, I would advise caution also on the topic of DM, because after all, both possibilities (existence of DM, modification of gravitational law) are just hypotheses. As far as I can tell, there is as much evidence for the existence of DM as there is against it.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Does this tie in with the Pioneer anomaly?

Possibly. But there are dozens of alternative explanations for it, many of them being much more conservative than assuming a modified gravitational law.