# A solution to the mystery of dark matter and dark energy

## Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Electric fields, magnetic fields ... exist in two opposing states:

·        charge (+) and charge (-)

·         north pole and south pole

Gravitational field has something wrong because it only has gravity without repulsive forces. Let us now assume that the "gravitational constant  G" is not invariant by distance. It can take negative values, positive and zero.

·        When ( G < 0 ), it will have gravity

·        When ( G  > 0 ), there will be thrust

·        When ( G = 0 ), there is no force

At the point where G = 0 is called the the equilibrium position. There are two types of equilibrium position: sustainable ( R2) and non-sustainable ( R1 , R3).

·        At  R2: If the moving object moves away from M, it is pulled in. If it goes in the direction of movement near the M, it will be pushed away. As a result, it simple harmonic motion around the equilibrium position R2. The amplitude of this simple harmonic oscillation can be very large.

·        At  R1 and  R3, if the object deviates from the equilibrium position, it will be pulled in or ejected.

Spoiler

Spoiler

The connection of objects in galaxies is similar to the bonding of atoms in the metal network. Thus, galaxies can exist in all different shapes.

In the distance from M to R1 is equal to L1. G<0  and R1 are said to be boundaries of Oort cloud because matter outside of R1 would be pushed out of the solar system.   So:      R1 = 1.ly

Is gravitational constant a constant? All experiments to find this constant are done at very small distances. This is a shortcoming in science. At great distances, humans rely on the motions of planets to find G. The law of Kepler 3 shows us that G is not a constant:

Recently, Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11(Pioneer anomaly)  show that G increases with distance.

Absolute values of G tend to increase with distance. G  decreases to zero and changes the sign (negative, positive) when passing through the equilibrium point. (See the illustration below).

The gravitational constant G is forced to increase to serve the following problem:

It is the energy conservation of gravitational waves.

If : L1 =  L2 =  L3 =... =  Ln,  then G is forced to rise too fast. This is unreasonable. Therefore, L must also increase along with G. I have an assumption that:  Ln+1  = K . Ln   with  K > 1. I'm leaning toward the plan :

K = 3

“This is just a guess, because most of the objects at distance  3ly have a direction of motion away from the solar system”

As G increases with distance, all gravitational calculations will no longer be valid. Gravity is much bigger than what we think. This is dark matter.

Gravitational field is not only gravity but also repulsive force. This is dark energy.

Spoiler

Edited by dung pham

##### Share on other sites

Please show how this matches the measured rotational curves of galaxies.

##### Share on other sites

Pioneer Anomaly was solved and it turned out not to be G changing.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I deleted the message due to the speculation far away from the main question.

Edited by xyrth

##### Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Moved to speculations

3 minutes ago, xyrth said:

Gravity could be a repulsive force followed by an attracted force, the mean not at zero. You can imagine the matter like an electrostatic+electromagnetic rotor, each matter is a rotor, more or less in phase, it depends of the distance.

!

Moderator Note

Responses need to be mainstream physics, not further speculation. (Which belongs only in its own thread)

##### Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Klaynos said:

Please show how this matches the measured rotational curves of galaxies.

Dark matter in galaxies is very different. There are galaxies where dark matter accounts for 99/100, but there are also galaxies with no dark matter.

Calculating it is a very complex matter. It requires a lot of data, effort and a powerful computer. All of these I do not have.

My article is just in the process of being formed. It needs the help of the scientific community to do science!

7 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Pioneer Anomaly was solved and it turned out not to be G changing.

Nasa has sophistry sometimes very humorous. Hubble is an example of this humor. Their plan is still in the process of controversy.

Another problem is that the kepler3 has been proved very well by theory, but the reality is ......... ????

##### Share on other sites

You can't discount evidence just because it doesn't support your belief.

Papers were put forward by several groups anyways. Whole slew of people were looking into it.

Have you looked at the n-body problem any?

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Endy0816 said:

Have you looked at the n-body problem any?

Theory is simply theory ! . Has anyone used it to calculate and give a reasonable result?

There are so many confusing things in Scattered disc that people can not explain.!

If we go the old way, we will not be able to explain the mysteries of the universe.

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dung pham said:

If we go the old way, we will not be able to explain the mysteries of the universe.

The old way? You mean the scientific methodology that is responsible for what we know of today and also responsible for showing up unsupported hypothetical nonsense that chooses to ignore evidence to the contrary for what it is.

##### Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Speculations requires some combination of model/testable predictions/evidence. Thus far I'm not seeing that, and if it is not forthcoming, this will be closed

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beecee said:

The old way? You mean the scientific methodology that is responsible for what we know of today and also responsible for showing up unsupported hypothetical nonsense that chooses to ignore evidence to the contrary for what it is.

To further this point.

In science, theory does NOT mean a random guess, nor a hypothesis, nor just an idea. A theory is the pinnacle of our understanding, well tested against the evidence, numerical and precise. Saying something is just a theory is similar to saying, "what do you mean he's not coming to work, he's only been decapitated".

##### Share on other sites

I do not say is to reject the old theory. I just want to raise it to a new height. If the old theory was perfect, then the problem of dark matter and dark energy was explained. There are a lot of new theories to explain this. But they are far more complex and difficult to understand than dark matter and dark energy. The motion of objects in the universe challenges every theory we have. Why do you think that the sun is running around the earth and not the earth running around the sun? Dark matter and dark energy are problems that can be explained simply by thinking differently about G. The fact is that scientists use Gravimeter to measure the gravitational acceleration of the earth. But after removing the influence of the moon and the sun, it gave a catastrophic result. What do you think about this?

##### Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dung pham said:

Why do you think that the sun is running around the earth and not the earth running around the sun?

Huh? Welcome to the 16th century.

It might come as a surprise to you, but for several hundred years we have known that, in fact, the Earth orbits the Sun.

13 minutes ago, dung pham said:

I just want to raise it to a new height.

Then you need to demonstrate, quantitatively that your idea predicts the observed motions of galaxies in clusters and the velocity curves in galaxies. Can you do that?

You also need to show how it explains all the other evidence for dark matter (gravitational lensing, large structure formation, etc.)

Without this, all you have is a worthless idea. There are thousands of those.

16 minutes ago, dung pham said:

Dark matter and dark energy are problems that can be explained simply by thinking differently about G.

So far no theory that modifies gravity matches the evidence. You need to demonstrate that yours does before anyone will take it seriously.

16 minutes ago, dung pham said:

The fact is that scientists use Gravimeter to measure the gravitational acceleration of the earth. But after removing the influence of the moon and the sun, it gave a catastrophic result. What do you think about this?

I think you need to provide a reference. Otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about: maybe you misunderstood what you read or you could just be making it up.

23 hours ago, dung pham said:

Recently, Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11(Pioneer anomaly)  show that G increases with distance.

Nope.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dung pham said:

If the old theory was perfect, then

... we would have stopped looking. It's a great thing that science doesn't look for perfection, but instead looks for the best supported explanation. Hopefully you read what Klaynos posted about what a theory REALLY is, because you don't seem to understand what one is. This concept is one of the most powerful in all of science, and it's important that we use it properly.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dung pham said:

The fact is that scientists use Gravimeter to measure the gravitational acceleration of the earth. But after removing the influence of the moon and the sun, it gave a catastrophic result. What do you think about this?

!

Moderator Note

Citations needed.

##### Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think you need to provide a reference. Otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about: maybe you misunderstood what you read or you could just be making it up.

49 minutes ago, Strange said:

Then you need to demonstrate, quantitatively that your idea predicts the observed motions of galaxies in clusters and the velocity curves in galaxies. Can you do that?

You also need to show how it explains all the other evidence for dark matter (gravitational lensing, large structure formation, etc.)

Without this, all you have is a worthless idea. There are thousands of those.

It looks like you did not read my paper carefully. G increases with distance and gravity also increases. If calculated according to the old method, gravity is 1, then in the new method it can be worth 2 or 3 ....This forces it to use larger velocities (compared to older calculations) to counter gravity.

The gravitational lensing is very easy to understand. If the Earth has its own atmosphere, galaxies also have its "atmosphere". If the earth's atmosphere can bend light, then ..

##### Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, dung pham said:

It looks like you did not read my paper carefully. G increases with distance and gravity also increases. If calculated according to the old method, gravity is 1, then in the new method it can be worth 2 or 3 ....This forces it to use larger velocities (compared to older calculations) to counter gravity.

The gravitational lensing is very easy to understand. If the Earth has its own atmosphere, galaxies also have its "atmosphere". If the earth's atmosphere can bend light, then ..

!

Moderator Note

Once again, you have posted no e v i d e n c e that this is the case. It is merely assertion, and that's not enough.

As for the link, there is no effort given to show that this is simply a measurement uncertainty and/or a bias in the measurements that needs to be accounted for.

Last chance.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dung pham said:

It looks like you did not read my paper carefully. G increases...

I presume that the link you posted is work by Rupert Sheldrake who is a researcher of parapsychology and his work is widely accepted by the scientific community as pseudoscience. Since he couldn’t come up with anything that makes sense in his own field, I wonder if his insights in physics are maybe...bull sh**?

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dung pham said:

I think you need something a little more reputable than the opinions of Sheldrake.

Quote

It looks like you did not read my paper carefully. G increases with distance and gravity also increases. If calculated according to the old method, gravity is 1, then in the new method it can be worth 2 or 3 ....This forces it to use larger velocities (compared to older calculations) to counter gravity.

I don't know what "paper" you are referring to, but there is nothing in this thread that answers the question. So ...

Please show that your idea reproduces the observed orbital velocities in galaxy clusters and galaxies. (Note: your reply needs to be quantitative: using mathematics to show the values predicted by your idea and comparing those with the observed data. Not just more claims.)

Quote

The gravitational lensing is very easy to understand. If the Earth has its own atmosphere, galaxies also have its "atmosphere". If the earth's atmosphere can bend light, then ..

1) Please show that the gas around galaxies has the right density to cause the lensing predicted by GR.

2) Please explain why there is no dispersion if this is caused by refraction.

3) Please explain how gravitational lensing is caused by dark matter even in the absence of galaxies or any visible matter.

4) Please explain how the observed large structure of the universe forms in the absence of dark matter.

##### Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dung pham said:

When people ask for a reference and/or citation, they mean a reputable reference and/or citation. The Internet is filled with more nonsensical pseudoscientific, religious, supernatural and paranormal rubbish, then with reputable scientific content. Impressionable and gullible people will fall for such nonsense.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, beecee said:

When people ask for a reference and/or citation, they mean a reputable reference and/or citation. The Internet is filled with more nonsensical pseudoscientific, religious, supernatural and paranormal rubbish, then with reputable scientific content. Impressionable and gullible people will fall for such nonsense.

I suppose you are insulting him and inadvertently you offend Thomas Edison as he only finished second grade and was expelled.

Evidence of G is very much. You take the time to use google and you will find

Edited by dung pham

##### Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dung pham said:

I suppose you are insulting him and inadvertently you offend Thomas Edison as he only finished second grade and was expelled.

Not at all...and of course all Edison and his team were actually doing was applying the scientific methodology, and making use of existing theory.

Quote

Evidence of G is very much. You take the time to use google and you will find

No, no evidence at all, but plenty of hypotheticals, ideas, and other unsupported  claims...mixed in with some scientific knowledge and accepted theory.

##### Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, beecee said:

4) Please explain how the observed large structure of the universe forms in the absence of dark matter.

Galaxies are formed in different states.

Galaxies have outer objects that move at small velocities. Its centrifugal force is not much. It will stand at M1 and be worth G1. If G1 = 6.67E-11, then the galaxy has no dark matter.

Galaxies with external objects moving quickly. Its centrifugal force is large. It will be pushed to position M2 and have a G2 value. Depending on the value of G2, that galaxy's rating has more or less dark matter.

##### Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, dung pham said:

Galaxies are formed in different states.

Galaxies have outer objects that move at small velocities. Its centrifugal force is not much. It will stand at M1 and be worth G1. If G1 = 6.67E-11, then the galaxy has no dark matter.

Galaxies with external objects moving quickly. Its centrifugal force is large. It will be pushed to position M2 and have a G2 value. Depending on the value of G2, that galaxy's rating has more or less dark matter.

Umm, I didn't ask that question.

But anyway, here a a few references...

That should bring you up to par re current knowledge of galactic formation and DM.

Other numerous papers available on the evidence for the existence of DM if you like....all reputable by the way.