5 ms·

What if dark matter is actually a secondary effect (a-la-turbulence) of the flow of space that gravity causes? (I know the idea that space can flow is a fringe

What if dark matter is actually a secondary effect (a-la-turbulence) of the flow of space that gravity causes? (I know the idea that space can flow is a fringe idea, but it seems thinking broadly/laterally in this area is not a terrible idea?)

GuB-42 6y ago
That would be a modified theory of gravity. I don't know about the idea of turbulence but modified gravity is serious science. It is just not the preferred explanation right now. An important reason is that AFAIK, none of these theories are currently able to match the observations without the dark matter they intend to eliminate.
- Google234 6y ago
  Attempts to modify gravity have not been too fruitful so far.
- Filligree 6y ago
  Especially after we spotted the bullet galaxy. Two galaxies collide. The dust stops, the dark matter keeps going... it isn't looking good for MOND.
arminiusreturns 6y ago
I've had a theory for years now that it is the opposite: eg that gravity is a second tier effect at shorter distance of normal matter consolidating in order to seek breaking through black holes into dark matter. So some form of entanglement as two universe membranes collide (aka the big bang) means "real matter" in this universe was but is no longer dark matter (this would only work in a dual universe system instead of a multiverse system I posit) but due to all matter entering via a single membrane collision point it is all some form of entangled (quantum or otherwise), so in this theory black holes aren't the dark matter, but the gateway for normal matter to become dark matter, transitioning back to the other universe. In this theory, dark matter would then be concentrated in the areas of our universe with sparse amounts of normal matter, a theoretically testable hypothesis at some point in the future. I'm no physicist, theory was developed while doing Einstein inspired imagination visualization/simulation of the big bang. I know it's probably so wrong in so many ways it's not worth a normal physicist to respond to, just thought I'd share. If I were correct, which I'm probably not, it would mean there are no "primordial black holes" that existed since the moment of the big bang, but rather as time went on the black holes were created and increase in number (also being part of what causes this universe to expand)
- Google234 6y ago
  This is basically equivalent to any other crackpot theory. You can’t through together a bunch of impressive sounding words and expect to get anything out of it. The one prediction I noticed that you made that “ dark matter would then be concentrated in the areas of our universe with sparse amounts of normal matter“ has already been proven to not be true. Dark matter is concentrated in galaxies.
  - arminiusreturns 6y ago
    Yep, I get shit on anytime I mention it, despite the disclaimers. Whatever, it's just a fucking thought experiment.
    - jdmichal 6y ago
      It's not fair to write that you have a "theory", then suddenly convert it to a "thought experiment" when someone points out the the one testable prediction you propose is already disproven. This is equivalent, though obviously lower stakes, to making a racist comment then saying it's "just a joke" when it's received badly. If you want things to be received as a thought experiment, call it that up front. You'll get people thinking and talking about it. But the response you received is in line with what the word "theory" means in the scientific community.
      - arminiusreturns 6y ago
        > I'm no physicist, theory was developed while doing Einstein inspired imagination visualization/simulation of the big bang. I know it's probably so wrong in so many ways it's not worth a normal physicist to respond to, just thought I'd share. Not sure how much more clear it can be... If the single word "theory" misapplied can't be seen through by such intelligences well what else is there to say than I'm sorry and I'll never mention it again. I'll stick to the theories I'm good at.
    - Google234 6y ago
      When you use word with mostly clear Technical definitions and meanings, you open yourself up to refutation. What you wrote is almost equivalent to saying 2+2=47374636628

GuB-42 6y ago

That would be a modified theory of gravity. I don't know about the idea of turbulence but modified gravity is serious science. It is just not the preferred explanation right now. An important reason is that AFAIK, none of these theories are currently able to match the observations without the dark matter they intend to eliminate.

Google234 6y ago
Attempts to modify gravity have not been too fruitful so far.
Filligree 6y ago
Especially after we spotted the bullet galaxy. Two galaxies collide. The dust stops, the dark matter keeps going... it isn't looking good for MOND.

arminiusreturns 6y ago

I've had a theory for years now that it is the opposite: eg that gravity is a second tier effect at shorter distance of normal matter consolidating in order to seek breaking through black holes into dark matter. So some form of entanglement as two universe membranes collide (aka the big bang) means "real matter" in this universe was but is no longer dark matter (this would only work in a dual universe system instead of a multiverse system I posit) but due to all matter entering via a single membrane collision point it is all some form of entangled (quantum or otherwise), so in this theory black holes aren't the dark matter, but the gateway for normal matter to become dark matter, transitioning back to the other universe. In this theory, dark matter would then be concentrated in the areas of our universe with sparse amounts of normal matter, a theoretically testable hypothesis at some point in the future. I'm no physicist, theory was developed while doing Einstein inspired imagination visualization/simulation of the big bang. I know it's probably so wrong in so many ways it's not worth a normal physicist to respond to, just thought I'd share. If I were correct, which I'm probably not, it would mean there are no "primordial black holes" that existed since the moment of the big bang, but rather as time went on the black holes were created and increase in number (also being part of what causes this universe to expand)

Google234 6y ago
This is basically equivalent to any other crackpot theory. You can’t through together a bunch of impressive sounding words and expect to get anything out of it. The one prediction I noticed that you made that “ dark matter would then be concentrated in the areas of our universe with sparse amounts of normal matter“ has already been proven to not be true. Dark matter is concentrated in galaxies.
- arminiusreturns 6y ago
  Yep, I get shit on anytime I mention it, despite the disclaimers. Whatever, it's just a fucking thought experiment.
  - jdmichal 6y ago
    It's not fair to write that you have a "theory", then suddenly convert it to a "thought experiment" when someone points out the the one testable prediction you propose is already disproven. This is equivalent, though obviously lower stakes, to making a racist comment then saying it's "just a joke" when it's received badly. If you want things to be received as a thought experiment, call it that up front. You'll get people thinking and talking about it. But the response you received is in line with what the word "theory" means in the scientific community.
    - arminiusreturns 6y ago
      > I'm no physicist, theory was developed while doing Einstein inspired imagination visualization/simulation of the big bang. I know it's probably so wrong in so many ways it's not worth a normal physicist to respond to, just thought I'd share. Not sure how much more clear it can be... If the single word "theory" misapplied can't be seen through by such intelligences well what else is there to say than I'm sorry and I'll never mention it again. I'll stick to the theories I'm good at.
  - Google234 6y ago
    When you use word with mostly clear Technical definitions and meanings, you open yourself up to refutation. What you wrote is almost equivalent to saying 2+2=47374636628