There is no need for dark matter to explain observations

The concept of cold dark matter is only based upon the need to explain observations that are not in agreement with the expectations based upon Newton’s gravitational constant. In the standard theory of the universe, the missing gravitational effect is supplied by supposing that it provided by additional mass that however is invisible – thus dark matter is invoked but it is only detectable by gravitational effects.

However, the observations and theory can be reconciled if one generalizes the gravitational constant as a power series in distance r. The additional component of the gravitational constant is still valid in our solar system (where the observations of planetary motion was used by Newton in his theory) and becomes significant at distances about the size of galaxies.

Details are available at my web site http://inventing-solutions.com/simplified-universe.htm

When the material in my site is taken into account, the excellent work by physicists trying to explain dark matter, dark energy, and other mysteries will require significant reevaluation.

My site is intended to help avoid wasted efforts of professionals working to understand the universe.

Additional material will be added as time permits.

Contact me with questions if you wish.

The material in this press release comes from the originating research organization. Content may be edited for style and length. Want more? Sign up for our daily email.

3 thoughts on “There is no need for dark matter to explain observations”

  1. Results in Einstein’s theory are deduced from two incompatible principles: the principle of constancy of the speed of light (speed of photons is independent of speed of the light source) and the principle of variability of the speed of light (speed of photons does depend on speed of the light source). This sounds strange but only at first sight. In 1911 Einstein shows that in a gravitational field the speed of light is VARIABLE and gives the respective equation: c’=c(1+V/c^2), where c=300000km/s is the initial speed of light relative to the light source and V is the gravitational potential. But if the speed of light is variable in a gravitational field, the application of the equivalence principle would show that in the absence of a gravitational field the speed of light is also variable and obeys the equation c’=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer.

    Einstein’s 1911 equation c’=c(1+V/c^2) is consistent with the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 and therefore this factor is a corollary of the principle of VARIABILITY of the speed of light. In my view, any other result or prediction in Einstein’s theory should undergo a similar test. Otherwise confusion would last forever.

    Pentcho Valev
    [email protected]

  2. The first wrong fundamental assumption about our universe is that Newton’s laws and gravitational constant are also valid at galactic distances outside our solar system.

    The second wrong fundamental assumption is that the observed red shifts of stars show that the stars are receding and that the universe is expanding.

    The consequences are that for over seven decades these assumptions have directed many excellent physicists into beliefs about the universe that are strange, wrong, and not really productive. There now are serious errors in the commonly accepted model of the universe.

    The first wrong assumption is the common belief that Newton’s law of gravity is also valid at cosmic distances. There are no observational proofs for this assumption. In fact when used together with observations of the motion of groups of galaxies (Zwicki), and the motion of stars in spiral galaxies (Rubin), these observations need massive amounts of missing matter, now called Dark Matter, to explain the many observations. Actually my simple extension of the gravitational constant G consisting of an additional term linear in distance, A*r, can explain the observations without needed dark matter. (This is different from the interesting MOND theory of Milgrom that involves acceleration.)

    The second wrong assumption is that the observed red shifts are only due to the Doppler effect and presumably show that the stars with red shifts are receding.

    This wrong assumption concerning the causes and meaning of the red shift has resulted in a number of even more serious errors, including the apparent expansion of the universe, the apparent acceleration of the expansion, and the need for Dark Energy, the wrong age of the universe based upon the Hubble constant, and the big bang.

    The red shift is supposed to measure the apparent receding velocity of remote stars, leading to the conclusion that the universe is expanding. This apparent expansion encouraged Einstein to remove his cosmological constant, which he previously had inserted into his equations to support his belief (wish) for a static universe.

    Actually, there are three additional contributions to the red shift and they are only due to gravity. The first is for photons leaving large masses. Massive quasars can appear to have large energy output and transverse velocities greater than the velocity of light.

    The second contribution is for photons traveling large interstellar distances and is due to gravitational drag by interstellar dust and gas (no image burring collisions) similar to the gravitational drag by our moon on Earth tides causing the moon to lose energy.

    The third contribution is due to the long-range drag by the extended gravitational constant, and adds a new ln( r ) contribution to the red shift. For very remote stars, determination of distance from red shift and the Hubble constant is no longer linear and should be corrected by the ln( r ) contribution for the extreme distances. This error makes the distance for very remote stars based upon intensity much larger than expected from the linear red shift and introduces the wrong concepts of accelerating expansion, and dark energy.

    Sol Aisenberg, Ph.D.
    [email protected]
    36 Bradford Road
    Natick, MA 01760

Comments are closed.