The shape of a second galaxy without dark matter clearly illustrates something many dissidents have suspected, but few understand: why dark matter is not needed. It has to do with something that mainstream and most dissident scientists have not taken into account: the geometry of gravitational fields.
A second galaxy discovered without dark matter had one simple characteristic in common with the first: it was spherical. And when measuring the speed of stars on the edge, they match with Newton or Keplers predictions. Big cosmology sees this as the absence of dark matter because they say it is dark matter that causes the stars on the edge of spiral galaxies to behave as they do.
The answer to this problem lies in the shapes of the galaxies and not in an invented dark matter.
The shape of the two galaxies that don’t have dark matter are spherical. And therein lies the answer. Spherical galaxies act as point masses. The Keplerian decrease in star speeds in galaxies are calculated with a point mass which works well for spheres, but doesn’t for non-spherical objects.
Simply put: the invention of dark matter owes is existence to the failure to recognize that most galaxies don’t act as point masses, but are complex shapes creating complex, non-spherical gravitational fields.
Spherical galaxies have spherical gravitational fields. Spiral galaxies have a very complex gravitational field. Overlaying a spherical gravitational field onto a flat, armed filled galaxy will never work when trying to understand the speed of stars in a galaxy such as our Milky Way.
This graph is from my fathers paper and subsequent video talk on his YouTube channel which clearly shows the discrepancies between a point mass treatment of our galaxy versus the actual star velocities measured in our galaxy.
My father points out that one can see the arms and spaces in the galaxy in the graph of the star velocities. The Keplerian drop off curve is the curve expected for a uniform gravitational field of a sphere: the exact shape of those galaxies found to have no dark matter.
What is seen by Big Cosmology as anomalous star velocities are in fact, the predicted star velocities from applying Newtonian gravitation to the irregular shape of a spiral galaxy. In other words, if you take into account the non-spherical shape of spiral galaxies, the velocities of the edge stars match calculations using simple Newtonian gravity with the exiting mass of the stars – no dark matter is needed.
Cameron Rebigsol did such calculations in his paper entitled “Newton’s Gravitational Law over Dark Matter“. Cameron first calculates the gravitational field with a bar, then a cross, and then subsequently breaks the cross into arms. What he finds, is that stars on the edge of galaxies should move faster according to Newton. No dark matter is needed.
It is remarkable to think that Big Physics and Cosmology do not recognize this simple fact. The space industry recognizes the complicated gravitational fields in our own solar system. Take the oddly shaped asteroids and comets we have seen. We certainly know that an object orbiting these strange bodies is not uniform. It can’t be treated as a sphere.
And we needn’t go further than our own planet and moon. Probes and space ships have to deal with a complicated gravitational field when when being sent into orbit around the moon. The gravitational field caused by what physicists call a two-body problem is complicated let alone 100 billion stars that make up our own milky way galaxy.
Why then does Big Physics and Cosmology not see that dark matter is not needed when we apply Newton’s gravity to the non-uniform gravitational fields of spiral galaxies versus spherical ones?
The answer lies with ego. You don’t win Nobel Prizes for correctly applying Newton’s gravity to galaxies of different geometries only to find that it works perfectly fine. You win Nobel Prizes for finding something new like a new particle or a new type of star or in this case dark matter.
The motivation for scientists in having dark matter is that dark matter is much more lucrative and prestigious than no dark matter. The word “dark” to mainstream science and the public is synonymous with mysterious and intriguing – something to solve and win prizes.
In the dissident world however, we see words like dark as a red flag for something gone wrong in our theories and models, not something that is waiting to be discovered.
A complicated universe brings a lot of advantages to egocentric mainstream scientists. It brings mystery and intrigue to science in a world full of entertainment and distractions competing for our attention.
It brings the illusion of genius to those who claim to understand the nonsense of modern physics and cosmology.
And finally, it allows for these egocentric scientists to get funding and lucrative prize money from governments and prize organizations who are run by the very same scientists who perpetuate nonsensical science.
If you use critical thought and apply the known equations of Newton’s gravity to the irregular gravitational field of a spiral galaxy, you do not need to postulate dark matter.
But egos won’t let that happen. Too much time, money, and too many reputations are at stake for the current theories to be thrown away. And Big science’s defense to combat real change is not to allow young critical minds to challenge the foundation of Big Physics or Cosmology. Instead, young people are taught to capitulate to will of a convoluted and broken scientific model and system that squashes decent and progress.
Luckily, we have those people around the world that are not tied to ego, salary, or titles who truly are looking to find out how this universe works and what theories and equations we can write to best describe what we see.
In the end, Big Physics and Big Cosmology cannot stop free thought and with the world becoming more woke thanks to the internet, the science woke, those brave critical thinkers, move science forward.
Dark matter is not needed. It’s refutation is in plain site in the articles written by mainstream itself. One simply needs to take the time and apply critical thinking and the answer is clear.
About the Author
