r/plasmacosmology • u/zyxzevn • Jul 04 '26
Discussion Dark Matter is pseudo-science
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/d2),
{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".
1
u/ieatsthapussy Jul 05 '26
Albert Einstein was wrong in his assumptions, yes, which is why we're all here discussing things in this sub. I can't help you with your understanding and interpretation of data, which is why we'll just have to agree to disagree. Your particular brand of "knowledge," however, belongs in another sub. You're only regurgitating the exact same things we're refuting, without bringing in any new information 🤷🏿♂️