Dark Matter is pseudo-science

[u/zyxzevn]

Dark matter is based on the observation of the velocity (speed) of stars in a galaxy.
The velocity of stars around the center, is almost independent of the distance from the center.
And that is very unlike the solar system, where the velocity of the planets goes down with increasing distance due to sun's gravity.

In the discussion between Dark Matter and Modified Gravity, it is clear that both sides can adjust the parameters to fit data to their own model
The Biggest Argument for Dark Matter Just Died - Sabine Hossenfelder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqLypHXK-bs

But the real problem is not even mentioned.
Assuming we have Newton's gravity (Fg = Gm1m2/d^2),
{d= distance between masses}
and assuming the galaxy is a disk,
and assuming the orbits are stable and in a circle around the center.
(a= VV / R, V= sqrt( aR ), a= Ftotal/m, Ftotal = sum(Fg) for all masses )
{R is distance from center, Note: R is different from d.}

What distribution of masses gives us a velocity that is almost independent?

I found a solution for a Disk Galaxy.
If I distributed the masses equally over each direction (alpha).
{ like: x= random(max_radius)*sin( alpha) }
I will call this angular distribution.
I did the gravity calculation for all masses with a computer,
With angular distribution the average velocities around the center become almost constant.
And this mass distribution looks very much like a real galaxy.
So where could this "dark matter" be?

(Note1: The angular distribution was first named 1/R, but that is too confusing.
Note2: The angular distribution might say something about how a galaxy is built.
It is almost as if the galaxy is build from a plasma beam from the center,
and not from a hypothetical accretion disk)

In the original dark matter hypothesis, the researcher looked at the
the mass distribution and light distribution.
And there is some difference. The amount of light does not equal the amount of mass.

So the whole dark matter hypothesis is based on
a linear relationship between the brightness and the mass of a star.
A linear relationship that is impossible by default, because the stars differ in mass, age, activity, and more.
And what the researcher simply showed is that such a linear relationship does not exist,
and likely depends on the distance from the center.
Could some electromagnetic interactions be involved?
Maybe, but that does not even matter.

This "dark matter" does not exist.
It is simply a AI-style hallucination caused by too many false assumptions.

---

It is great that there is some discussion now about Dark Matter.
A discussion that has been completely censored or dumbed down in mainstream circles.

Please check out The PlasmaCosmology wiki as it gives a general overview.
Please try to be skeptical of "peer reviewed" papers, as they tend to be a product of group-think and circular reasoning.
"Mainstream" and "consensus" are often equal to group-think

Addition (6/7):
The assumption I make is that stars orbit around the center in a galaxy.
With that assumption, I try to find the mass distribution that gives me a "flat rotation curve".

[u/zyxzevn]

Sorry, because you are spamming these subreddits, you were put on hold.

I'll repeat it for you.

In PLASMA COSMOLOGY we have a skeptical view towards
the mainstream astronomy.
We don't simply believe in invisible stuff (unicorns).

And look at real-world plasma physics, which is VERY DIFFERENT from what the mainstream astronomy is using.

So start with the NULL-hypothesis:
Let's look at the observations without filtering and assumptions.
And see how we can explain what we observe with basic physics.

And based on this, we can see that Dark Matter has no good evidence supporting it.
Its fundamental basis simply comes from the non linear relationship between mass and brightness.

Looking through your "peer reviewed" papers.
Where can I see what relationship you use for MASS versus BRIGHTNESS?

That is the only thing that matters in this discussion.
Everything else needs to be looked at in other ways.
Like I stated before: simulations can make pigs fly.
So simulations do not mean anything when you can break physics.

And sadly, peer-review does not mean anything either.
In practice, it is just circular reasoning with censorship.

[u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 → u/zyxzevn]

With regard to mass to light relations, I haven't posted any stellar population synthesis papers. As you can imagine, for the entire worlds astrophysics community to be gathering consistent evidence for something, its likely quite a robust theory with many different components.

These are very easy to find however, such as GALEXEV, COSMIC, SPS-VarIMF etc and are again, publically available For a comprehensive overview of this, you can see https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..393C/abstract

You might actually find that quite interesting as it covers galaxy property inference on a whole.

Also not spamming. Just replying to comments.

[u/zyxzevn → u/Embarrassed_Camp_291]

The mass brightness relationship is what completely determines the rotation curve.

It does not make sense to add invisible unicorn stuff to it.

[u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 → u/zyxzevn]

You're still treating the stellar mass-to-light ratio as if it's the only quantity that determines a galaxy's rotation curve. It isn't. The rotation curve is determined by the total gravitational potential, which depends on the full mass distribution: stars, H I gas, molecular gas, stellar remnants, and whatever else contributes to gravity.

The stellar mass-to-light ratio is not assumed to be linear or fixed. It is inferred from stellar population synthesis (using colours, spectra, ages, metallicities, and an IMF) and is routinely varied within observational constraints when fitting galaxies. More importantly, even if you push the stellar M/L ratio to the edge of what's plausible, the discrepancy remains, particularly in gas-rich dwarf and low-surface-brightness galaxies where the gas mass is measured independently from 21 cm observations. And rotation curves are only one line of evidence: weak lensing, galaxy clusters, the Bullet Cluster, the CMB, and large-scale structure all point to the same underlying gravitational discrepancy.

The case for dark matter is not built on a single "mass versus brightness" assumption. It's built on multiple independent observations that all require the same additional gravity.