Understanding Dark Matter: A Simple Explanation

[Stuart]

careful

Did you even see the video that I linked to in Post #3? It answers/addresses at least a couple of the questions you asked here, if not more.

And yes, we CAN "fully define" gravity, even though we continue to test the General Relativity picture of gravity. Don't you think it is rather silly to not know enough about gravity, and yet, we can predict celestial events with such accuracy? How many other things that you think you can define and have such amazing accuracy?

Zz.

We cannot define gravity, what we can do is describe it. We don't yet posses a complete definition of anything. Worse yet, every particular thing we know is inconsistent with at least one other thing we know.

Ptolemy thought he had great data. Newton in fact did have great data. Even so he lacked an etiology. That's where we're at with dark matter. There's great data, but there's no demonstrable etiology. Any number of alternate explanations are feasible. Topology would seem to offer a more rational explanation. We may not like that idea, but at least we can confirm the existence of spatial topology.

 

[Bobbywhy]

We cannot define gravity, what we can do is describe it. We don't yet posses a complete definition of anything. Worse yet, every particular thing we know is inconsistent with at least one other thing we know.

Ptolemy thought he had great data. Newton in fact did have great data. Even so he lacked an etiology. That's where we're at with dark matter. There's great data, but there's no demonstrable etiology. Any number of alternate explanations are feasible. Topology would seem to offer a more rational explanation. We may not like that idea, but at least we can confirm the existence of spacial topology.

Stuart, do you mean “spatial topology”, for example, this:
“Spatial Topology and its Structural Analysis based on the Concept of
Simplicial Complex”
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.0920.pdf

or, is there some reference you can post here to direct us to “spacial topology”?
Thank you,
Bobbywhy

 

[Mordred]

here is the problem I'm having with your posts, in your other thread when you were asked for what you mean by topology you posted 1 article on MOND, one article on Branes, and one article on I guess you would call it single wave and one on quantum gravity.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4751564&postcount=6
-The Bullet Cluster 1E0657-558 evidence shows Modified Gravity in the absence of Dark Matter
-Cosmic Acceleration from Topological Considerations: Branes Filled by Scalar Field
Dark Matter.
-Pattern formation in Hamiltonian systems with continuous
spectra; a normal-form single-wave model
-Quantum Gravity from Noncommutative Spacetime

These are separate models, what you have not done is show us your Specific topological model that you are trying to push on us. What is the name of the model that conforms to your feeling is right in regards to gravity, dark matter and dark energy? Please post an article directly related to all 3 within a single model. At least then we will know which model you specifically support

edit Hamilton mean field model pulls up some google hits,usually just statistical mechanics

 

[Stuart]

I'm not pushing any model. It just seemed to me that people are taking a lot on faith. I provided a variety of alternatives because I'm trying to point out that we have great phenomenology, but extremely weak etiology. DM, MOND, QG, etc.. are etiologies. We have great observational data to evidence, describe and predict phenomena, but I'm aware of no evidence that supports any single etiology.

 

[Mordred]

ah thanks, that makes more sense. In reply to that it only seems that way. LCDM is simply one of the more successful models. As such if you buy a cosmology textbook, it will teach LCDM. However their is plenty of research that tries to find faults within every model, LCDM included. That is good science. Scientifically speaking their is no 100% (this is the final word on this model). No model is ever considered 100% proven. Every model has its successes and its weaknesses.

As far as answering questions on the forum though, its forum policy to teach what would be in those textbooks. Helps the student learn according to academic studies. This is simply good policy.

If your interested and can afford it you should buy "Roads to Reality" by Roger Penrose. In that book he mathematically shows problems within ever major model. He doesn't even place the model he has supported for 40 years with 100% faith. In fact within that book he points out that he knows and admits his favorite model has numerous faults.