tmdarkmatter

This correlation would also be clear if it would be between observed redshifts and exposure to gravity multiplied by time of exposure. The farther away a galaxy is, the higher should the exposure to gravity be in total. But as I do not like the idea of galaxies travelling faster then the speed of light, nor the idea of a far too young universe, I would definitely prefer the gravity option. If we consider that the milky way only spinned 70 times so far since the big bang, I just cannot imagine that the shape of the milky way would be so perfectly aligned in only 70 spins. Just compare this with the amount of spins earth needed around the sun and earth is only one simple sphere, not a complex structure like a galaxy with arms and a perfect center. If we think that redshifts correlate with objects moving away and redshifts increase gradually at increasing distances, this automatically fulfills the idea of objects separating from each other at the same time. There are no two different ways to measure this. But this same correlation would also be present if we use gravity as a cause of redshifting. In this case, each object farther away would just have been exposed to more gravity than the closer objects what definitely makes sense considering the longer exposure to gravity. The only way to confirm if the galaxies are moving away from us and the universe is expanding would be by measuring changes of the size of galaxies in time. But how many million years would we have to wait until a galaxy 13 billion light years away (a dot) would get small enough for us to confirm that it is actually moving away, even if almost at the speed of light? But if it is not moving away in millions of years, this would definitely refute the idea of a big bang and an expanding universe. In this regard, it is highly suspicious that the only big galaxy (easy to study) next to us (andromeda) is moving our way and is not moving away. And it is also suspicious that such galaxy movements are also difficult to confirm with all other close galaxies, because obviously their speed away from us should be much lower than the speed of the distant ones.

In that case, why can we not see galaxies more than 13,5 billion light years away? Are there no more galaxies around us? I know that you will now say that these galaxies have travelled away from us in the meanwhile, but what makes you so sure that the universe is actually expanding (faster than the speed of light/"nonsense" balloon theory)? I know that you will now talk about the Hubble constant and the red shifting. But if you check the Pound-Rebka experiment, red shifting can also come from the effect of gravity on light, so I am actually not sure if galaxies are more red shifted as further away they are because they are moving away or because the light coming from them is being manipulated more by the mass of all the galaxies in between and even our own milky way. I think, there is a contradiction, but science currently accepts both theories to be true. Science should be chosing one of them and the Pount-Rebka experiment seems to be a much better match to our observations of space. But this is only my opinion and I am sure that I am now going to get heavily criticized. But what would science be if it is not possible to criticize? Anyway, I think that the universe should be much bigger than we currently think, it is just that we cannot see what is further away because of extreme red shifting.

No, I am not saying that more photons are being created. Instead I suppose that the light and mass of our sun or the light and mass of our galaxy might interfere with how we see the other stars or galaxies and their light intensity. For example, if you watch the andromeda galaxy, it has an apparent magnitude of 3,44 and the apparent magnitude of sirius is -1,33. It seems as if Andromeda is only shining as strong as 21 billion suns, but astronomers think that andromeda should contain a billion stars. I know that red dwarfs shine with a much lower intensity, but it seems as if light is being manipulated by light or mass when entering our milky way, so that less light arrives at earth for us to see. Maybe stars shine much stronger than we think. With mass manipulating light I am talking about the famous Pound-Rebka experiment. Of course, I would be totally disappointed if you would not be convinced of this at the beginning and maybe during the next decades! Finding the solution for dark matter will definitely not be easy. But there are still a lot of anomalies (maybe millions of them) in space and each of these anomalies might get the "light mass" closer and closer to become significant and to replace "dark matter". The light mass might at the end generate elephants. I will mention some of these anomalies next week. Don´t worry, the journey is just beginning, this is only the introduction. The light mass is just the main ingredient. At least my very simple calculations are showing 11 times the mass of the milky way in a sphere with a radius of 25 million light years surrounding us. With time, we might be able to make this sphere smaller and smaller until it fits.

Yes, I know what you mean, but this would be the universe if we take into account that the universe kept expanding while the light of the furthest galaxies was travelling to us, but I prefer to only consider "visible universe" the part of the universe we can actually "see" so far.

Yes, you are right. It would be falsified if light has no mass at all of any kind or if the "mass of light" coming from all light sources in our universe would be insufficient in order to replace at least a noticeable part of the so-called "dark matter".

Ha ha, that was really funny! Somebody left the lights on! I will always remember that joke. I think this crazy idea has to do with how crazy our universe is, it is so vast that we cannot imagine it. Just the idea of light travelling for billions of years is very difficult to actually imagine. I know, they show us these videos where we quickly abandon our galaxy and thats it, but that is not the case, the light just keeps going and going and going, almost eternally. Maybe we should create a movie instead showing the light passing by earth after 8 minutes, passing by pluto after 5-6 hours, but then to the next star it is 4 years. Maybe after watching this movie for days or weeks, people would realize how the universe works and why we do not understand it. And the problem is that the sphere becomes bigger and bigger and the light has to fill all this three-dimensional space. But the worst thing is, that we might need a big telescope at the edge of our solar system and at the edge of our milky way to better investigate this. Because it is possible, that after leaving our solar system or the milky way, we would suddenly see a lot more light around us, so we might have to increase our estimates of light produced by stars. So, while most scientists are checking the living room for these invisible elephants with their magnifying glasses, I am just turning the light on and off lol I think I used the wrong wording here. It should say: I am proposing a simpler solution, nothing else.

Ín the 19th century, scientists were still not aware that there were more galaxies than just our milky way and that space would be at least 13,5 billion LYs big into all directions. That is a lot of space for a lot of light. Also, if for example a soccer field is our solar system, the sun would only be of the size of 2 blood cells and next to this soccer field there would be another soccer field containing alpha centauri, some more blood cells. Now check how many blood cells 1 ml of blood contains, if you put these blood cells on the ground in this soccer field, you would not notice them at all. The interstellar space is really enormous and in at least three dimensions, just try to fill this space with some light and you will understand why I am worried about scientists not finding dark matter after so many decades. I think the main question is if light has mass or not. If it does not, that´s it. But what happens if it does? Many scientists are still argueing about this possibility. Some are strictly against it and other are in favor. I think that in a century, scientists will say: of course light has a mass, didn´t you know that? And maybe in two centuries, scientists will again say: no, light definitely has no mass! No problem, we can expand the universe, but in that case, there would be more galaxies too. No, it does not come equally. If you are close to a star, most light comes from that star. If you are within or close to a galaxy, most light comes from that galaxy. The same happens to galaxy groups and clusters and finally, whether you are close to the center of the universe (if there is a center) or far away. But I must say that you are the first person telling me that light comes equally in every direction. Other scientists believe the complete opposite, they say that once you leave the galaxy, suddenly there is no more light! It is very interesting that you think exactly the opposite. I am happy to see smart people on both sides.

I am sorry, but isnt the farthest of all galaxies discovered so far about 13,5 billion LYs away?

I took a galaxy at a distance of 7 billion light years (maybe the average distance of all galaxies found so far) and calculated the mass this average galaxy would provide to a cubic light year at that distance. Of course, this is considering that the sun is losing 4 million tons per second as "light mass" and taking it as a "standard star" in a "standard universe" without having in mind a lot of anomalies that should be present too.

Swansont: Yes, as you can see I am calculating light mass based on the surface of a sphere that expands. This surface increases exponentially, so the resulting light mass also decreases exponentially. Of course, the light mass is much higher when close to a star or galaxy. Markus Hanke: Yes, this idea is very interesting. Maybe we did not see these things "yet", because as previously said, we are comparing a person being burned by our sun during 2227 years and a person being pushed down by one gram of light mass in 2227 years. This should be something extremely difficult to check/comfirm.

I mean, you would have to stand in the sun for 2227 years until you are finally hit by at least one gram of light mass

These are my calculations concerning light mass surrounding our milky way without any anomalies: The main problem is that as our neighbor galaxy andromeda is 2.5 million light years away, we think that the “halo” of the dark matter surrounding us should be somewhere in between at a distance of about 1.25 million light years. That would be correct, if there would be another 30 galaxies of the size of andromeda surrounding us at a similar distance and if there would be many more galaxies of the same type surrounding us every 2.5 million light years of distance, so in a sphere with a radius of for example 50 million light years, there should be at least some 32000 galaxies of the same size. But in that case, the night sky would be full of big galaxies and the light arriving at our planet would be so intense that we would not be able to sleep at night. It would also not be possible for us to distinguish or see planets like Mars or Venus. Instead, we can see that the next group of bigger galaxies is about 50 million light years away. So, the sphere of dark matter/light mass surrounding us should have a radius of at least 25 million light years and in the middle of this sphere there would now be two galaxies of the size of the milky way. The total mass of these galaxies is at least twice the mass of the milky way, meaning that of course we also need twice as much dark matter. Now, if we analyze the amount of light mass created by our milky way, the calculation is as follows: 1,3 10^14 (light mass per star) x 2,5 10^11 (number of stars) = 3,2510^25 tons of light mass per year. If we now multiply this mass per year with the radius of the sphere of 25 million light years, the total mass created by our galaxy within this sphere is about 8,125 10^32 tons. The total mass of our galaxy is calculated as follows: 1,5 10^12 (amount of sun masses) * 2 10^27 (mass of the sun) = 3 10^39 tons But we are making a mistake here, because in the estimate of sun masses, we are already including the “dark matter”, so if we remove the “dark matter”, the mass should rather be: 1,5 10^11 * 2 10^27 = 3 10^38 tons. If we compare the mass of the light created by our galaxy with the mass of our galaxy in the 25 million radius sphere, the light mass is still negligible: 8,125 10^32 tons / 3 10^38 tons = 2,70 10^-06 (Of course, if we multiply the mass of the galaxy by two (including andromeda), the mass of the light would also double.) But here is the second mistake we are making: We are completely ignoring the light mass created by the remaining billions of galaxies surrounding us. If the galaxy that is farthest away from us is at a distance of 13,5 billion light years, we can for example think that an average galaxy is at a distance of about 7 billion light years. (Of course this should be more). But if for example we want to calculate the amount of light mass reaching us, coming from this “average” galaxy, the calculation is as follows (with “average galaxy” I mean a galaxy of the size of the milky way at a distance of 7 billion light years): 1,3 10^14 (light mass per star) x 2,5 10^11 (number of stars) = 3,2510^25 tons of light mass per year. Area of a sphere at a distance of 7 billion light years: 4*3,14*(7 10^9 light years)2 = 6.15 10^20 square light years So, the light mass provided by this distant galaxy to any square light year is: 3,2510^25 tons of light mass / 6.15 10^20 square light years = 52807,74 tons of light mass per year per square light year. As the light travels at the speed of light, saying light per year per square light year is the same than saying a light year cube. Now, if we multiply the mass of light generated by this average galaxy, affecting every light year cube of the universe with the number of galaxies found so far, the total mass of light per light year cube is as follows: 52807,74 tons * 1 10^12 galaxies = 5.28 10^16 tons The volume of the sphere of 25 million light years surrounding our galaxy is as follows: 1.33333333 * 3,14 * (2,500,000)2 = 6,54 10^22 cubic light years If we now multiply the number of tons provided by all galaxies with the number of cubic light years contained in the sphere with a radius of 25 million light years surrounding our galaxy, the calculation is as follows: 5.28 10^16 tons * 6,54 10^22 cubic light years = 3,45451 10^39 tons of light mass. As you can see, if we compare the light mass provided by our galaxy with the light mass provided by all galaxies surrounding us contained in that sphere, the calculation is as follows: 3,45451 10^39 tons of light mass all galaxies / 8,125 10^32 tons of light mass from our galaxy = 2,352 10^-07 We can see that the light mass created by our own galaxy in the space surrounding our galaxy of a radius of 25 million light years is negligible when comparing it to the light mass provided by all other galaxies and even including the light mass of andromeda would not affect the total a lot. This situation makes sense if we think of what we would see in the night sky if we would be standing on a planet at a distance of 25 million light years from our galaxy. We would see a sky full of tiny dots (only galaxies) and just two of these tiny dots would be a little brighter and these would be our two sister galaxies. If we compare the light mass provided by all galaxies with the mass of our milky way, the calculation is as follows: 3,45451 10^39 tons of light mass / 3 10^38 tons (mass of the milky way) = 11,51 That means that the total light mass created by all of these galaxies contained in this sphere with a radius of 25 million light years is 11,51 times the mass of our milky way. Now, after having posted this, there are a lot of things to consider. The main issue is of course the question if light has a relativistic mass or not and if this mass is atracting/manipulating other mass. The other issue is the quantity of light available, but there are many many anomalies to be considered before rejecting light as the best candidate for dark matter: Here are some of them: - How much light does our galaxy actually emit? If we observe the andromeda galaxy, we can see that most light comes from the center of the galaxy. The gas cloud in the middle can be responsible for a multiple of the light created by all the stars. This increase would also affect all the galaxies surrounding us, increasing the total mass of light considerably. - How much mass has the infrared and ultraviolet radiation? - How much mass has the background radiation? - Are there more galaxies out there we did not find yet? - Are there abnormal stars that emit much more light than regular stars, increasing the amount considerably? - How much light passing through the sphere mentioned comes from supernovas occurring somewhere in the universe? If we count all the galaxies and the supernovas occurring in each galaxy every thousand years, there should be about 40 supernovas per second taking place in the visible area of our universe. That means that there must be many three-dimensional waves of intense light mass passing through our 25 million light years sphere right now. - Are there any further radiations to be included? - What influence has the relativity of time on the light mass traveling through a space with a much lower passage of time (the intergalactic space)? - What influence has the relativity of space on the light mass traveling through this space? - To what extent are all the objects with a high mass (stars, black holes, neutron stars, galaxies) capable of “holding back” light mass? Especially, the black hole should be able to withhold a considerable mass we might currently classify as mass pertaining to the black hole, but this mass might rather be just light mass. Maybe 99% of the mass of a black hole is only light mass and a big part of this mass might be leaving the black hole because it did not reach the event horizon. Maybe this light is circling around the black hole for many years, until it finally leaves. - To what extent are stars, planets, moons, asteroids, comets etc. capable to reflect light back. Not all light would be able to leave our galaxy straightforward. I suppose that there is quite a lot of light mass passing several times through our galaxy before it actually leaves it. This would also increase the total amount of light mass. - To what extent is light manipulated by mass, not only creating the effect of red shift but also reducing its intensity? The only way to check this would be sending a big telescope to the border of our solar system and sending another one to the border of our milky way. If we watch the andromeda galaxy and compare its intensity with the star Sirius, it is very suspicious that its intensity is only of about the intensity of about 21 billion times the light intensity of the sun, if the andromeda galaxy is really containing 1 trillion stars, so the light intensity might actually be reduced by surrounding mass. I know that you now might say that a reduced light mass would be against my theory, but it is actually the opposite, because it would mean that the actual light intensity of all galaxies would be much higher than we initially thought, but only a telescope outside of our solar system or outside of our milky way would prove that idea. Joigus: First, thank you for joining us! My question is, if protons interact a lot with surrounding mass/space, why can we still see the light coming from galaxies that are far far away (13 billion light years)? Shouldn't these protons be so manipulated that the pictures arriving at our telescopes are completely blurred or shouldn't the light be completely deviated from its original path? And Janus: I want to tell you that the light mass should be many times (thousands) more concentrated within our milky way and then start to decrease as we move away from it. It seems that this concentration of light mass might decrease even more if we move farther away from the big galaxy clusters. Maybe the "average light mass" in our universe is 100 million light years away or even more. The other question is, if there should be objects "scattering" that light and producing a glow, why do we not see that glow around the moon? We are so extremely close to the sun that the effect of scattering would be most intense around the moon, far more intense than around some objects far away in the intergalactic space. Don´t forget that the mass of light should be billions of times higher being so extremely close to our star. Concerning the idea if light has a mass or not, I want to tell you that we are looking for an incredibly tiny mass, something totally negligible.If the sun produces 4 millions of tons of light per second, only about 3.627 kilograms of that mass would hit earth per second. Now, if we stand in the sun, just compare how quickly our body temperature increases and our skin gets red with the idea of being hit by about 1,4 10^-11 grams per second. Nobody would ever notice that we are being "pushed" to the ground by that light mass. But of course we notice the heat and sunburn. Here you can see that light is of course almost only energy and only a very tiny (usually negligible) part should be (anormal) mass. But please never take anything I am saying personal, I totally respect what you are telling me and if you are posting here, you must be some very smart guys with much more experience in this field than me. While I was chatting in a German forum, it was all the time about one person attacking the other. Instead, consider that I am just asking questions. My intentions are not to "harrass" people who think differently, but to learn from others and exchange ideas.

First of all, thank you very much for sharing your opinions here. It is really an honor for me to see you writing here (on the same day!). Right now, I am very busy, but later today or tomorrow I promise that I will provide (possible) answers to all of your questions and post all my calculations so far. Of course, my ideas are very far away from being "confirmed/accepted", but I am trying to offer a new kind of solution. Anyway, I will show you that there are many more questions/anomalies to be considered when calculating the actual "mass of light" surrounding us. For example, the galaxies might generate much more light than we would think when only taking into account the light emitted by each star, because there is a big gas cloud in the center of almost each galaxie and when looking at the andromeda galaxy, you can see that this gas cloud seems to be shining much stronger than all stars of the galaxy together.

During the last decades, scientists have been searching for all kind of particles to explain the “dark matter” effect. But these particles are either too heavy, too rare, not transparent, or they combine to form more complex structures that would become visible. But a couple of years ago, I discovered a much simpler solution to this problem, and I am offering it in my new book (still only in German) “Eine Lösung für das Geheimnis der dunklen Materie” (Author: Thilo Müller). If light is manipulated by mass (see the Einstein rings) and our sun loses 4 million tons of mass per second, I think that light should have its own mass and that this mass is responsible for the effect of “dark matter”. Because light is present everywhere in high amounts, it is transparent, it is very light, it does not combine to form more complex structures. Many would say that light is not invisible. But how can you see billions of years of light that have not arrived at earth yet or billions of years of light that have already passed by? You can only see the light arriving directly at your eyes one instant at a time. Most light will always be invisible to us. But when I offer this solution to scientists, at first, they have serious doubts about me as a complete outsider, then they say that light does not have a mass and finally they say that the mass of light would never be enough, because a star would never emit 4-5 times its own mass as light. But before rejecting light mass as the cause of dark matter, there are several things to consider: - The light mass created by our sun is negligible in our own solar system. (Just imagine being 3 light days away from the sun, what would you see at the sky? The sun would already be a small dot surrounded by millions of other dots. And 3 light days is still very far away from the limit of our solar system) - The light mass created by the milky way and the andromeda galaxy contained within the sphere corresponding to them (a sphere with a radius of at least 25 million light years, because the next galaxy group is at least 50 million light years away) is negligible within this sphere when comparing it to the light provided by the billions of other galaxies surrounding us. I took a “standard galaxy” of the size of our milky way and at a distance of 7 billion light years to see how much light it should provide to a cubic light year at a distance of 7 billion light years, multiplied the result with the number of all galaxies known so far and multiplied this total light mass with the volume of the sphere with a radius of 25 million light years surrounding our sister galaxies (milky way and andromeda) and came to the result that this sphere contains at least 11 times the mass of our milky way in the form of light mass (maybe enough to explain the effect of dark matter). Please let me know what you think. Kind regards, Thilo Müller