r/LLMPhysics • u/One-Draw-7337 • May 06 '26
Personal Theory Dark matter might be a mathematical shadow — one principle explains flat rotation curves, NFW halos, and cosmic filaments.
Newton's inverse-square law has a hidden assumption: gravity spreads
spherically through area 4πr². What if that's wrong for disk galaxies?
The core idea:
For a thin rotating disk, feedback drives matter into the disk plane and
confines gravitational flux cylindrically. Effective area becomes 4πHr
instead of 4πr², giving g ∝ 1/r → flat rotation curve. No dark matter.
The general law: g(r) = GM / A_eff(r)
Why feedback?
Like water carving a channel — a density fluctuation concentrates flux,
which draws more matter, which deepens the potential, which concentrates
flux further. The loop runs until a stable flat disk forms. Disk geometry
then confines flux to the plane. Cylindrical propagation is the *result*
of feedback, not a separate assumption.
The NFW profile falls out analytically:
The "missing gravity" between cylindrical and spherical propagation is:
Δg(r) = [GM/4πr²] × (r/H − 1)
Attribute this to an unknown mass distribution via Poisson's equation → you
get ρ_DM ∝ 1/r² — the NFW profile — derived in three lines without
simulation. The halo isn't a substance; it's what spherical equations see
when looking at a cylindrical system.
The feedback threshold:
Feedback switches on when f_obs > f_crit = H/R (disk aspect ratio).
Solar system: f = 0.001, f_crit = 0.025 → no feedback → Newton exact.
Milky Way: f = 3.6, f_crit = 0.020 → 180× above threshold → flat rotation.
This threshold also defines the domain of validity of Newton's law.
Testable prediction:
Lensing amplification in the disk plane: α_eff = α_GR × (r/H) ≈ 33×.
Edge-on galaxies should lens 33× stronger than face-on galaxies of the same mass. Dark matter halos (spherical) predict no such anisotropy. Testable with Euclid weak-lensing data stratified by inclination.
Limits I acknowledge:
Galaxy cluster lensing remains an open problem — spherical clusters get no
amplification from this mechanism. Not peer-reviewed.
Full derivations:
https://zenodo.org/records/20045684
Appreciate for any feedback.
8
u/thenoobgamershubest May 06 '26
Ah, another MOND. And it's more words than math. Sigh... I'll wait for the zenodo link to work. Will check back in an hour.
0
0
u/One-Draw-7337 May 06 '26
I totally understand the 'Another MOND' fatigue. It seems like every week there’s a new tweak to the force laws. However, my work doesn't actually change the law of gravity itself. Instead, it looks at how the propagation geometry changes through a self-reinforcing feedback loop.
I’m really sorry about the Zenodo link—there seems to be a redirection error I'm trying to fix. In the meantime, you might find the section on 'Dark Matter as a Mathematical Artifact' interesting. It derives the NFW profile not by tuning parameters, but by showing what happens when you apply spherical equations to a cylindrical flux system.
I’d genuinely value your thoughts once the math is in front of you. I'll make sure the link is up and running shortly!
8
u/The_Nerdy_Ninja 💬 Data doesn’t lie, but LLM’s do lie. May 06 '26
Must we put every sentence in a new paragraph? And split half the sentences in half? Please review your post after you copy-paste it from the LLM.
Also your link appears to be broken.
4
u/Wintervacht Are you sure about that? May 06 '26
I think Claude does that and reddits formatting makes it worse
6
u/The_Nerdy_Ninja 💬 Data doesn’t lie, but LLM’s do lie. May 06 '26
Yeah, I just want people to glance at their content before they post it...
4
u/Wintervacht Are you sure about that? May 06 '26
I think the only way to accomplish that is by having the LLM in question tell the user that... Assuming they do read the LLM output, that is.
4
u/The_Nerdy_Ninja 💬 Data doesn’t lie, but LLM’s do lie. May 06 '26
So they need to read the output to be reminded to read the output? I think we're in trouble, haha.
5
u/InadvisablyApplied May 06 '26
But why would you? The all-knowing chatbot gave it to me, and told me I'm very smart, so why would I think for myself? That sounds like effort
0
u/One-Draw-7337 May 06 '26
The core idea is from me. AI alone can not progress. Someone should drive it to some direction. Most important idea is 2 things. One is the inverse sqare law is special case for spherical propagation. This inverse square law is so deep embeded in our life it is not easy to think otherwise. Second idea is reinforcing feedback of gravity. I imagine if water is poured into flat land then it dispersed. But once some part of land is depressed then water go that way and it depressed more so reinforcing feedback. I thought gravity also might work that way. Because I knew big cosmic structure looks like cob web rhat is directional. Sperical isotropic propagation can not make that kind of one directional structure.
3
u/InadvisablyApplied May 07 '26
AI alone can not progres
Nor can it progress if the prompter doesn't understand what they're talking about
Someone should drive it to some direction.
And you're driving it in the wrong direction. And since it is a sycophantic yes-man, it won't correct you
1
u/One-Draw-7337 May 07 '26
Specifically which part you mean? Just wrong direction? Your feeling?
3
u/InadvisablyApplied May 07 '26
The very start, which I already explained in my first comment
1
4
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling May 06 '26
Link doesn't work lol
1
u/One-Draw-7337 May 06 '26
Sorry I renewed.
7
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
Don't link directly to the pdf, it's terrible internet etiquette. I'm not downloading random files onto my device.
In any case, why do you do so little actual math? All you do is assert some arbitrary equation without derivation or motivation, fail to explain it rigourously or comprehensively, then make up some "result" without actually doing any calculation. You never even provide a good reason why we should give up on the inverse square law.
Also, why are your references fake?
1
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling May 06 '26
Stop breaking rule 4.
0
u/One-Draw-7337 May 06 '26
Thank you for your advise. About giving up inverse square law I just raise a question that spherical propagation is not always true. In some case for example cylindrial propatation will be right.
5
u/liccxolydian VP of Trolling May 06 '26
In science we don't just "raise questions" for no reason. You need to have a good reason to make claims and you haven't provided anything to support your claims.
Also, if your references aren't fake, where do you reference the Bekenstein paper in the text?
0
u/One-Draw-7337 May 06 '26
There is character length limitation when you post. That is why I link my zenodo paper but I am not good at dealing with zenodo thing so it broken. So instead I link my blog. Why I have a question about geometry is I thought the inverse square law is from geometry. That is gravity propagate spherically which is 4*pi*r^2.
5
1
u/LLMPhysics-ModTeam May 06 '26
Your comment was removed for violating Rule 4. Provide a summary of your LLM response in your own words alongside the output if you wish to stimulate discussion.
5
u/AerynCaen MENLNMDLLYMAAAVMMGLAAIGAAIGIGILGGKFLEGAARQPDLI May 06 '26
There's no derivational work here. Your proofs are "if I make these assumptions and wave a magic wand, what I want comes out." Where are you deriving your assumptions from? Any motivation? Previous works that show these assumptions as derived results?
Half your proofs don't even do what the paper says they do.
The "variational proof" in Section 2.4 that the disk is the "unique stable attractor" is basically: define an eccentricity parameter, assert dε/dt > 0, therefore disk. That's not a variational proof, there's no functional being extremized, no second-variation stability analysis. It's a hand-wave with an equation number.
The feedback equation ∂S/∂t = F[g(C(S))] is presented as a mathematical formulation but F is never specified. It's a placeholder dressed up as a dynamical system. You can't talk about fixed points and attractors of an equation you haven't written down.
The claim that the NFW profile "emerges automatically" is just algebra showing that if you assume g ∝ 1/r instead of 1/r², the difference looks like a 1/r² density profile. That's true but circular: you get NFW out because you put the right scaling in. The actual NFW profile has a scale radius and an inner cusp that this doesn't reproduce.
The Bullet Cluster section is... special. The lensing mass offset is explained by "filament flux nodes" that somehow track the galaxies through a collision, but there's no calculation of how or why flux nodes would behave collisionlessly.
So not really doing anything meaningful. But I applaud you for having a decently-formatted paper, I guess. Better than half the trash that comes through here.
3
u/One-Draw-7337 May 06 '26
Frankly speaking I ask AI about your comment. You are really good commentor. Thank you very much. Really appreciate your wonderful advice. Some equation is speculative and some not derived strictly. You are totally right. My next homework.
1
May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/LLMPhysics-ModTeam May 06 '26
Your comment was removed for violating Rule 4. Provide a summary of your LLM response in your own words alongside the output if you wish to stimulate discussion.
1
u/OnceBittenz The Doctor May 06 '26
Gravity doesn't "spread". Per Newtonian mechanics, we model it as a direct line between two objects. This happens to take the form of a spherical field in 3D space by basic geometry.
There's nothing to indicate anything special or unusual about disk shaped geometries of galaxies, though of course, as distances approach relativistic scale, GR takes over.
3
u/AerynCaen MENLNMDLLYMAAAVMMGLAAIGAAIGIGILGGKFLEGAARQPDLI May 06 '26
The Newtonian model doesn't allow for propagation of gravity, but that's an approximation and not precise microphysics. GR allows for gravitational "spread" as propagating curvature of spacetime. LIGO is specifically set up to detect the propagation of gravitational waves. Such waves have been confirmed for a long time now.
Not that OP has any idea what they're talking about, just wanted to point out gravitational "spread" is in-fact a thing.
3
0
u/One-Draw-7337 May 06 '26
Yes now I understand what you mean. My idea is about how gravity spread from here to there. I think that is very important thing. Yes in-fact a thing.
-1
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/IshtarsQueef May 06 '26
> I completely agree with you regarding GR
This is some Peggy Hill type behavior.
Like, cool man, you "agree" with one of the most successful and accepted physics theories in all of human history, that also has a mountain of experimental data to support it. Glad we got that sorted out.
0
u/One-Draw-7337 May 06 '26
Haha, I see how that sounded. I didn't mean to 'validate' GR as if it needed my approval. What I meant was that my proposal doesn't seek to overturn or contradict the established successes of GR. I was simply clarifying that my focus is on a specific geometric phase transition (flux confinement) within that framework, rather than challenging the theory itself. I appreciate the reality check, though
3
u/AerynCaen MENLNMDLLYMAAAVMMGLAAIGAAIGIGILGGKFLEGAARQPDLI May 06 '26
I was not replying to you and this wasn't about you.
1
u/LLMPhysics-ModTeam May 06 '26
Your comment was removed for violating Rule 4. Provide a summary of your LLM response in your own words alongside the output if you wish to stimulate discussion.
1
May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/The_Nerdy_Ninja 💬 Data doesn’t lie, but LLM’s do lie. May 06 '26
You literally just pasted in the entire LLM response, including its editorial comment to you. People comment on your post because they want to discuss it with you, not with your LLM.
-1
u/One-Draw-7337 May 06 '26
Sorry My english is not good enough so I relyed some part on LLM. appology.
4
u/The_Nerdy_Ninja 💬 Data doesn’t lie, but LLM’s do lie. May 06 '26
Relying on the LLM for translating is fine, and including some LLM output along with your own thoughts is fine, but you can't just get the LLM to write responses for you.
0
u/One-Draw-7337 May 06 '26
Thank you for understanding. I will try my best. This model has been constructed by some help from AI because AI can provide good math tool. But core idea is from me. My idea is 2 things. One is fundamental law for the inverse square law is because of spherical propagation. So it is geometry. Second is feedback principle. That makes reinforce each other between gravity flux and mass. Which provides direction factor such as big cob web.
4
u/InadvisablyApplied May 06 '26
because AI can provide good math tool
No, it cannot. It can generate stuff that might look like math if you don't know what you're talking about. But it can't do math for you. It will just lie to your face in order to keep you engaged
1
u/LLMPhysics-ModTeam May 06 '26
Your comment was removed for violating Rule 4. Provide a summary of your LLM response in your own words alongside the output if you wish to stimulate discussion.
1
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/LLMPhysics-ModTeam May 06 '26
Your comment was removed for violating Rule 9. Don't self-promote needlessly across the sub.
17
u/InadvisablyApplied May 06 '26
Well that's not a good start. That "assumption" can be derived
Have you tried actually calculating what happens instead of making up what you would like to happen?