What's the Matter with Dark Matter?
Whatever form dark matter takes is incompatible with simple Newtonian gravitation.
The entire pantheon of "suspects" is meritless on the basis of an impossible distribution scheme. An alternate theory is presented originating from logical-semantic errors made by Newton which turn out to have real physical consequences.
The most logical conclusion based upon the preponderance of evidence is that dark matter does not exist. Can we honestly believe that experienced scientists of sufficient skill to uncover particles as elusive as the neutrino, omega particle and top quark and stellar objects as remote and seemingly unknowable as quasars, black holes and pulsars are unable to locate 90% of the mass of the universe? ... when the bulk of our own galaxy is supposedly made of it?
The "embarrassment" here is not one of technical ability but one of theoretical inability ... namely, the inability to do the primary job of the theoretician which is induction. Something new and entirely fundamental is the problem here. One cannot obtain such ideas by deduction from known principles.
Oort, Zwicky, Rubin 'facts' reveal a new principle which "scales up" in quantity as one scales up observations. It is manifestly not Newtonian gravitation. Yet one expects (and even subconsciously demands) that it be subsumed by Newton's general world view.
The Kink in Dark Matter Theories
Galactic orbital velocity measurements which do not trail off in accordance with common gravitational expectations seem to demand that a roughly "spherical" shell of "unknown mass" be situated such that the plotted rotation curves comport with Newton. But no one seems to notice that such a shell itself is incompatible with Newtonian gravitation. How can such a shell be formed in the first place?
If we are to assume that dark matter is initially homogeneous with "normal" matter (and we must if we are to postulate that it is within every galaxy), then it must have gotten "out of homogeneity" by some mechanism.
That mechanism cannot be gravity.
Since dark matter gravitationally interacts with normal matter (and vice versa), it should have dispersed in the same pinwheel pattern as the observed spiral galaxy. There is no reason in any gravitational theory for matter, in any guise, to sort itself on a galactic scale. Nor is there any reason to suppose that it was sorted out by the only other long-range force (emf).
Ergo, the sorting mechanism must be none other than some new "fifth" force of nature, hitherto unknown with the unlikely property of "non-commutative interplay", i.e. A acts on A, A acts on B, B acts on A, but B does not act on B (in the same manner as the other pairs ... a roughly spherical shell might even suggest a repulsive BxB force).
A Simple Error
Newton speculated that matter attracted matter. The operative word here is "attract". No one has ever seen an attraction (or repulsion for that matter). What we see are objects moving and by placing measuring devices on, in or around objects we can quantify the "force" which acts and in what direction it acts (its vector). However, this tells us nothing more about the force itself. For instance, we can't logically state whether it is a push or a pull. We SEE NOTHING.
This opens the door to another interpretation which "subsumes" Newtonian gravitation without supplanting it. Nor is any mayhem committed upon it at "local" stellar distances.
Dark Matter as a Reinterpretation of Common Observation
Let us suppose that two liquids are mixed (oil and water). Left alone they separate. Now, do we observe that oil attracts oil? ... or ... oil repels water? ... or ... water attracts water? ... or ... water repels oil? More importantly, does it matter? As long as the math works out, this is just an example of pure semantics having no bearing on the conduct of physics.
The same cannot be said for matter and its "water". i.e. space.
In this explanation of Oort, Zwicky, Rubin anomalies, space is an "active agent" in pushing matter around. In short, as matter acts upon the geometry of space, space acts upon matter directly ... without an intermediary ... a sort of action-reaction.
Here is an important question:
Why is matter more mysterious than the space in which it is contained? Is it because space is "nothing"? Or, perhaps because we, ourselves, are made from it?
There is no "a priori" reason for our assumption of a flaccid spatial parameter.
It is my view that a space-generated interaction is the "gravitational concomittant" i.e. the logically necessary "partner" to gravity just as matter and space are necessary partners.
Thus, gravity pulls and space pushes. Why? Because we cannot "see" what gravity is ...
in principle. Therefore, we are logically obliged to accept both parameters as equally viable. As matter condenses, so does space (but in another place). We must accept that matter attracts matter, space attracts space, and matter-space is repulsive ... because ... this is what we actually see (all permutations laid bare).
The pressing question here now is "What possible quantitative difference can this make?" Clearly, if there is no deviation from Newtonian mechanics, then, the entire issue is of semantics only. But there is a deviation. The description by Newton (m1 x m2 / r ^2) pertains to the matter-matter interaction and is certainly accurate in our vicinity. Perhaps not so elsewhere.
Adiabatic Galactic Heating
The observation of Zwicky (that galaxies in clusters have excessive velocities yet remain gravitationally bound) can be attributed to the repulsion of matter by empty space.
Imagine that these galaxies are in a bag and that the bag is squeezed into a smaller volume. Then the galaxies will heat up adiabatically just as air molecules do and for identical reasons. Galactic clusters are held in place partially by their matter-matter interaction and partly by being "pressed" together by the space outside of the cluster ... an inverse gravitation.
The same is true for the observations of Oort. Stars within galaxies are bound both by their own mutual attraction and by the repulsion from extra-galactic space.
The observations of Rubin are somewhat more complicated but originate from the same source.
Rotations curve anomalies represent the varying pressure from external space. It varies because such pressure "cancels" out in the center of the galaxy for symmetry reasons, i.e. in the center a test mass is repelled in all directions at once, hence, the repulsions cancel. The curve for external repulsions is therefore greatest at the edge of a galaxy going to zero at the center. When both curves (space repulsion and matter attraction) are superimposed the resultant curve will match the Rubin curve.
Note: Adiabatic heating of a rotating galaxy results in faster orbital velocities due to angular momentum conservation ... here, mainly supplied to the outermost stars.
The Scaling Parameter
The space/matter ratio determines the force of compression that might be observed.Within a galaxy the average distance between stars is ~10 light years. Therefore, there are about 10^3 cubic light years per star. But the distance to the next galaxy is on the order of 1,000,000 light years giving ~10^18 cubic light years or about 10^7 cubic light years per star if we consider ~10^11 stars/galaxy.
This yields a force on a star (directed toward the center of its galaxy) as much as 10,000 times greater than the force of compression on an individual star arrising from the space immediately arround it (10^7 / 10^3).
Similarly, we might scale up from here using galaxies as "units" instead of stars. Thus, the amount of hypothetical dark matter available to "close" the universe increases as we increase our volume of observation.
Q = ~1
The Q parameter must remain at about 1 because the expansion of space is tied to the gravitational repulsion-attraction interaction.
In this way:*
As matter condenses (shrinks), space expands. If matter stops condensing (gravitating), then the expansion will stop since that expansion represents the inverse spatial condensation. The two are concomitant. We cannot have one without the other.
Therefore, the amount of matter needed to close the universe against the concomitant expansion must of necessity be roughly an equality (actually less than one since the the process is ongoing ... i.e. the universe won't expand if gravitation stops but gravitational condensation isn't finished). How much less than "1" must depend on the rate of condensation of matter via gravitation which may change with time.
If we are willing to accept empty space as dynamic, it is no great stretch of imagination to find the apparent cause of the "voids" and "walls of galaxies" on exceptionally large scales. Matter in the form of stars and galaxies is pushed out of growing concentrations of empty space. Anyone familiar with weather (earth or solar) understands that "cells" form where there are conflicting parameters, e.g. heat rising but no vacuum allowed ... ergo ... downdrafts and cells.
~ End ~