Konstantin Pavlovich 22 October 2023

Dark matter, dark energy, the big bang and other inventions are the grossest mistakes of cosmologists. Such elementary mistakes made by these so-called "cosmologists" are not permissible even for middle school students of the most mediocre school. These errors are analyzed in detail on a solid foundation of physical laws (without any scientific delusional fantasies of cosmologists) in the book "Big Bang of Scientific Idiocy", author Pavlovich Konstantin. The book can be downloaded from аmаzon for 10 days for free.

Bud Rapanault 25 July 2022

@Roy Lofquist

I don't believe there is any historical evidence that the precession anomaly was a motivating factor behind the development of General Relativity. Rather, beyond the obvious desire to establish a principle of general relativity - that the laws of physics apply in any reference frame, it is well documented that Einstein considered the primary goal of GR to be the unification of gravity and inertia:

It is also worth keeping in mind that the field equations of GR have never functioned well at the scale of galaxies and above without the ad hoc additions of dark matter and dark energy.

Roy Lofquist 20 July 2022

@Bud Rapanault

A 38 arcsecond anomaly in the precession of the orbit of Mercury led to General Relativity.

Bud Rapanault 17 July 2022

@ Mark B, People who propose and publish strong statements with cosmological implications based on a set of flimsy data points regarding the dynamics of 5 pairs of widely separated stars, that they then couple to some speculative physics, aren't practicing science, they are engaging in mathematicism.

Mark B 15 July 2022

What do people think of this?

--- Testing Newton/GR, MoND and quantised inertia on wide binaries ---

M. E. McCulloch & J. H. Lucio
Astrophysics and Space Science volume 364, Article number: 121 (2019) Cite this article

5076 Accesses
2 Citations
75 Altmetric
Metrics details
Abstract
Wide binary stars are within the low-acceleration regime in which galactic rotation curves deviate from Newtonian or general relativistic predictions. It has recently been observed that their rotation rates are similarly anomalous in a way that dark matter cannot explain, since it must be smooth on these small scales to fit galaxy rotation curves. Here, it is shown that Newtonian/GR models cannot predict these wide binaries since dark matter cannot be applied. It is also shown that MoND cannot predict these systems. However, a model which assumes that inertia is due to Unruh radiation made inhomogeneous in space by relativistic horizons (QI, quantised inertia) can predict these wide binaries, and it has the advantage of not needing an adjustable parameter.

Mario Ljubičić 14 July 2022

MOND is abstract - it might predict gravity with distance but what is the physical interpretation of this separation from Newtonian gravity?
The problem with all these hypotheses and theories (GR included) is abstract treatment of space and lack of relativity (GR is not completely relative).
And while dark matter doesn't work as proposed, exotic particles could still form an interpretation of observable phenomena.
If anyone is interested in a solution that works in all cases, check my Complete Relativity theory on amenoum org.

Kevin McBride 14 July 2022

Hi there.
I'm an accomplished research scientist and faculty in another field but I have a dispassionate interest in cosmology. I love science and cosmology was always a favorite of mine. The career in science went into a different field but i've always had a passing interest. A couple of observations from your article Pavel.

1) You do a great job of pointing out the short comings of dark energy hypothesis and the problems with current thinking of the field. The models don't work (but that is an exciting thing.... see my comments below)
2) You do a terrible job of self-evalution on the MOND hypothesis. Even an out of the field "amateur cosmologist" scientist like myself knows and can point out studies where MOND has shortcomings and issues with describing observational data. Look I get it, you think MOND is a better fit but as a fellow scientist be careful about putting aside critical analysis of your own hypothesis. Please reevaluate some of the wording in this article and how it fits with the philosophy of science i.e. "does not in fact exist", "overwhelming confidence" and "most falsified physical theory" (see below my comment about theory)
3) Accusing colleagues in the field of "continues to be religiously believed to be true by the vast majority of the modern, highly-educated scientists". that's pretty insulting. Most physicist I've interacted with don't "religiously believe" the current dark matter model, they are looking to modifiy hypothesis because they know it doesn't fit. Frankly none of the hypothesis completely fit and NONE reach the level of theory, including MOND. Religious comment implies "faith" e.g. belief without fact. We have plenty of "religious" zealots denigrating science and policy made with science in mind. Let's be thoughtful of how we use that word. Science is under attack politically all over the world. Last thing we need is accomplished scientists feeding that fire.

4) A theory in science is a totally different thing than a hypothesis. MOND and dark matter are models. They don't reach the level of theory, they are at best hypothesis. I really have an issue with scientists who don't clarify the basic philosophy of scientific methods to the masses and ones that don't make that distinction. Please everyone stop calling these things theory, you're using it as common venacular definition which people get confused about. Are you a scientist? use the word theory correctly.
5) Its pretty clear the dark energy models stink, MOND solves many of the observational issues dark energy has, but then has it's own issues. The scientific field has alot of issues with upturning dogma. "Paradigm" is overused but when its real is often met with resistance. The journal publishing models suck but there aren't really better ones that are practical. Scientific progress is as much about big headed egos as it is facts and data. We just realized we don't know diddly squat about how cosmology operates. Its exciting and gives importance to the field, outside of the field people take interest, that feeds progress. Embrace it, don't denigrate it. advocate for MOND don't denigrate fellow scientist. Politicians and the public are already doing that plenty enough, especially in an era where science probably matters to the common good more than ever in history. Stand up for science, the philosophy of it and your colleagues, even if you don't agree on specifics.
6) From a rather dispassionate distance without deep knowledge, MOND model seems to carry more weight. But I've experienced hypothesis being disproved by data, multiple times and that's usually the most exciting science I've done. Are we in this field because our ego demands we win ever time or because we love science?
7) Loved the discussion on why dark matter models are bad. Hated how you put down your colleagues that are working in that area

Joe Bakhos 14 July 2022

I very much agree with Dr. Kroupa's position. I've recently put forward a modified gravity hypothesis that explains galactic rotation rates and also cosmological expansion without the need of dark matter or dark energy. I am wondering if these methods might be used to prove or disprove the hypothesis I have put forward?

This hypothesis also includes an adaptation of general relativity that explains time dilation and energy increase at relativistic velocities and within a gravity well, while retaining Euclidean space.

Part of this hypothesis includes the idea that higher concentrations of neutrinos may inhibit other quantum processes. I am wondering if there is any theoretical basis for this claim that I am making?

Please take a look at my paper and comment if you wish.

A copy may be downloaded here at Vixra. Go to the Vixra site, and search for "Chasing Oumuamua" in quotes, and look for the paper by Bakhos

Carl Perizzolo 13 July 2022

I guess I'm stupid, but I've always had 2 simple explanations for the "expansion of the universe."
First, if you postulate the big bang was like a large shockwave, the universe is growing like a balloon. If you put 3 marks on a balloon, 2 next to each other and one on the opposite side, as the balloon expands it would appear that the far point is moving faster than the near one, but that is due to relative motion, not the absolute motion of moving away from a common center. The expansion is constant.
2nd option is the obvious one that the farther away a galaxy is the older it is. Therefore the farther back in time. So, the galaxies were moving faster a billion year ago than they are now, since the more closer / recent ones are moving more slowly.
One implies a constant rate of expansion, and one that's slowing down.

K Mitchell 13 July 2022

Plasma theory looks best, imo. Fits evidence. MUCH older universe - trillions of yo.

Many failed theories still in vogue, not least is CAGW, Big Bung, and mRNA vaxxes.
Let's put Dark Matter in the ground where it belongs, then we can drop these other failed and sometimes dangerous theories.

Jim Fisher 13 July 2022

It has seemed to me for some time that the idea of dark matter came about because those responsible failed to be scientific. It's as basic as that. The scientific approach, as any schoolchild can tell you, is that if you find your theory does not fit the facts, then you change the theory. In this case the so-called scientists have taken the opposite approach, keeping the theory and inventing some facts without evidence (dark matter and dark energy) to bring about the desired match.

Roy Lofquist 13 July 2022

Radio astronomy observations of Pulsars indicate that the Hubble Red Shift is caused by “Tired Light” rather than the expansion of the universe.

When Hubble published his observations of red shifted light from distant objects there were two possible explanations that came to the fore. One, originated by Georges Lemaitre, was that the Universe was expanding. The other, from Fritz Zwicky, was that light lost energy as it traveled, termed "tired light". At that time, ca. 1930, interstellar and intergalactic space were assumed to be perfect vacuums and thus there was no mechanism to redden the light. Now, 90 years later, we have actual observational evidence that Zwicky was right.

In the radio astronomy of Pulsars we find that the shorter wavelengths of the leading edge of the pulse arrive before longer wavelengths. The velocity of light, c, is NOT constant but varies by wavelength. The dispersion is proportional to the distance from us of the pulsar. The observed effect is isotropic. The conventional explanation is that the dispersion measure is the “integrated column density of free electrons between an observer and a pulsar”. The mechanism matters not. What matters is that the interstellar medium is not a vacuum but rather affects light waves in a way best described as having an Index of Refraction greater than 1, unity. We find the same phenomenon in the observation of Fast Radio Bursts from other galaxies, thus indicating that the intergalactic media is not an electromagnetic vacuum.

Bud Rapanault 13 July 2022

"Modern cosmological theory is totally wrong and we need to develop a new theory based on MOND."

Well, yes and no. Yes to the first part, the theory is totally wrong, but yes/no to the second. We need a new theory to be sure but if it is solely based on MOND while maintaining the erroneous foundational assumptions of the standard model, the result will be a model that is wrong in a new and possibly exciting (for some) way - but still wrong. There are two foundational assumptions of the standard model dating back to the early 20th century:

The first is the assumption present in the FLRW model that underlies the standard model, that the Cosmos is a unified, coherent, simultaneous entity that can be modeled with a gravitational model derived in the context of the the solar system, General Relativity. Given the observed scale of the Cosmos is @10 billion lightyears in radius and given the fact that the maximum speed of light is @3x10^8 meters/second, there is no possibility of the Cosmos we observe being a simultaneously existing entity. Another way of saying this is that there is no physical possibility of a universal spacetime frame having any physical meaning. That fact is consistent with General Relativity which does not have a universal frame but only describes the relativistic relationship between local frames. Solving GR for a model with a universal frame was an oxymoronic exercise and the result speaks for itself.

The second foundational assumption is that the cosmological redshift is caused by some form of recessional velocity. There is no empirical evidence to support that assumption but it dovetails nicely with one of the FLRW solutions to GR that describes an expanding universe. And so we have an expanding universe model which makes no sense in terms of known physics but which a lot of scientists fervently believe in. That fervent belief, in turn, necessitates subsidiary beliefs in other empirically baseless entities, dark matter, dark energy, the inflaton field and expanding spacetime, not to mention the absurd Big Bang event with its laughably inexplicable original condition.

The expanding universe of the standard model is just as much a delusion as dark matter and dark energy. Until the expanding universe paradigm is relegated to the dustbin of history, modern cosmology will remain an absurdist mathematical fiction with no scientific basis.

Xinhang Shen 13 July 2022

The reason that celestial objects moving nearly frictionlessly is that the viscosity of dark matter (i.e. the medium of electromagnetic waves - aether) is very very small. Of course, Einstein's relativity is wrong and must be abandoned because the relativistic time defined by Lorentz Transformation is not the physical time (i.e. clock time) we use to measure the speed of light. We can see the difference between the relativistic time and clock time in Lorentz Transformation:

There are two relativistic inertial reference frames: (x, y, z, t) and (x', y', z', t'), and (x', y', z', t') is moving at a constant speed v along x-axis of (x, y, z, t), and (x, y, z, t) and (x', y', z', t') are related by Lorentz Transformation. We use the angles of two rotating plates to represent the physical times of the two reference frames. The two constantly rotating plates perpendicular to the x-axis and fixed at the origin of (x, y, z, t) and the origin of (x', y', z', t') respectively are set to have the same rotating angle alpha at any time of t observed from (x, y, z, t), that is, two events (x1=0, y1=0, z1=0, t1=t, T1=alpha) and (x2=vt, y2=0, z2=0, t2=t, T2=alpha) are set to be simultaneous measured by both relativistic time t and physical time T. When these two events are observed from (x', y', z', t'), according to Lorentz Transformation, they become (x1'=-γvt, y1'=0, z1'=0, t1'=γt, T1'=alpha) and (x2'=0, y2'=0, z2'=0, t2'=γ(t2-vx2/c^2)=γ(t-v(vt)/c^2)=γt/γ^2=t/γ, T2'=alpha). These two events are no longer simultaneous measured by relativistic times: t1'=γt is different from t2'=t/γ, but the physical times of the clocks are still the same: T1'=T2'=alpha because the vertical rotation of the plates are not influenced by the horizontal speed. Therefore, relativistic time t is not the physical time T represented by physical clocks, but a meaningless artificial time and thus special relativity is wrong. Moreover, T1=T2=T1'=T2'=alpha tells us that the physical time is absolute i.e. independent of the reference frame, that's why the atomic clocks on the GPS satellites can be synchronized relatively to all reference frames.

Steve Maricic 13 July 2022

I passed physics in high school 50 years ago, so everyone should pay attention to my latest theory of gravity.
Gravity is communicated by waves. These waves can be added or subtracted -- just like sound, sea, and electromagnetic waves. Inside a galaxy, waves from all the stars and planets and other masses tend to add to each other -- increasing the frequency of the gravitational waves.
The higher the frequency, the stronger the pull of gravity. No need for dark matter.
Between two distant galaxies, the gravitational waves tend to subtract from each other. There's a red shift in the frequency, just as with light. The lower the frequency, the weaker the pull of gravity. No need for dark energy.
I can prove my theory to my satsfaction if someone gives me a two million dollar grant. I can prove half of it for one million.

Kenneth Hughes 13 July 2022

How about 5% normal matter and 95% dark energy, (which is the energy of the vacuum due to the passing of time)

Roy Lofquist 13 July 2022

There are two models, Plasma Cosmology and Electric Cosmology, that account for the phenomenon of the anomalous rotation of galaxies. They both model galaxies as homopolar motor/generators. (Search for "Homopolar Galaxy")

Modern observations have revealed vast electrical currents and their magnetice fields both within galaxies and linking galaxies. Electromagnetism is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. Gravitation force decreases as the square of distance where as magnetic field intensity decrases linearly.

These models don't involve modifications of Newtonian Dynamics.