Thread: A unschooled logical proposition on dark matter

1. Newbie
Join Date
Jun 2018
Posts
1

A unschooled logical proposition on dark matter

Hello everyone,

Let me start of by saying I have no background in physics (except for basic knowledge), as such I would like to ask for someone with more understanding then myself to take a look at my proposition (and tell me whether it could be feasible or not). I have found it difficult to articulate my thoughts in text therefore this might get a little complicated, please bear with me.

In order to explain my proposition as best as possible I will frame my knowledge of physics (or lack thereof). I base my proposition on the following notions, which are to my knowledge generally accepted in physics to date.

First:
From my understanding of the universe it holds true that as an object is farther away, it seems to move further away exponentionally as time passes (this holds true for any object in any direction). The classical explanation as to why this is the case is that space itself is expanding. Often times people invoke "dark matter" and "dark energy" two concepts that we can prove should exist in order for this to hold true.

Second:
Now here it gets a little fuzzy as my understanding of this subject is very limited and comprehending this information without a background in physics or math makes it very difficult to understand what is going on. (need help on this). Now as far as I understand there are multiple ways to find how much "stuff" or matter is inside a galaxy, one being looking at the light emitted from the galaxy and from there inferring the gravity of each single object visisble, another being looking at the rotation speed of said galaxy and then inferring how much stuff should be inside this galaxy based on the speed of its rotation. As far as my understanding of this is that when looking at the rotations speed shows about 5x as much stuff then the measurement performed by looking at the visible light in the galaxy. Therefore there must be additional objects that have gravity but are invisible hence the notion of dark matter is introduced. Note once again I might be horribly wrong on this subject but this is my understanding of it.

Third:
Gravity bends light

Now from these basic concepts I infer the following proposition which differs from the classicaly accepted truth. Namely that space is not expanding, Imagine that over an infinite distance an objects light would be bent infinite amount of times, from this follows that if an object is further away the likelyhood of its light having been bent increases. Now as soon as the light of a single object is bent twice things get weird. To demonstrate assume that a + equals an object and that ~ is the distance light has travelled between said object. Lets assume that light from an object is bent twice over a distance x represented by 3~. Now if the distance ~ increases the light will have travelled longer thus the effect of it having been bent increases. Now lets look at the following proposition: +~+~+~0 (at point 0 the photon is measured). Now, because the light has been bent by different masses along the way it will take longer for the light to travel from the initial object to the measured position 0 as distance increases. (because the light will no longer be travelling in a straight line, instead it will be moving in a zigzagging fashion)

Now to explain this fenomena dark matter I will make an assumption (I don't understand the specifics of whether this might be possible at all). The assumption that I will make is that the rotation of all given bodies inside of each galaxy, system, each body in general is in fact accellerating by the increase in mass of its own galaxy / system over time (due to collision, the merging of any body in space) This could be a galaxy merging with another galaxy or as simple as a single star increasing its mass in a solar system through collision with any object, as each object and galaxy increases in size they are pulling on surrounding objects more and thus further increase their mass and speed of rotation. Now as far as my understanding goes, if space was finite this could occur (even if the tugs of gravity are as small as they are now eventually in due time they should all converge together). Now lets say for arguments sake that this is true, how could this explain dark matter? Or the increasing distance measured of each star? Well in our previous proposition of +(1)~+(2)~+(3)~0 as light was bent by each object it increased lights travel time, therefore when the light was bent by object 2 it would have travelled longer then the light coming straight from object one. To illustrate this differently: lets say because the light is bent the light travels longer, lets say the light travels 1 million years to get to point 0 directly, and each object subsequently is located at a an equal distance. therefore object 1 is 33% of the distance, object 2 is 66% of the distance and the measurement is taking place at 100% of the distance. Now because each object sligthly alters the direction of the light it travels longer distances then the 1 million lightyears it would take for the light to travel directly from object 1 to location 0. For arguments sake lets say it travels 1.1 million lightyears (this is just an example). Now if we were to want to identify which object had pulled on the light to increase the time spent travelling, you would want to search in the location of which you beleive the object would have to be tugged in order for it to have been 1.1 million lightyears. However there is nothing there, why? Well the light directly traveling from object 2 arrived earlier then the light that is bent by object 3. Therefore you are in essence looking for an object that has already moved from your perspective. This object that should be there but can't be seen there is what I would call Dark Matter in this situation. Now why do I assume that each individual body is actually acellerating. Imagine now that the assumption which was made earlier that if light travels infinite lengths it will be bent by infinite objects, if each of these objects are in fact accelerating around an orbit then the amount of times light would be bent from any given location will increase exponentially across time (as objects move faster in a finite space the amount of colissions it would experience increase. This means that light is bent more often over large distances as time progresses thus giving the impression that everything is moving away at an accelerating rate.

I know this concept is way more complicated than I described, I just hope that I got my point across and that there is atleast one person here that can follow my vague explanation and provide me with some insight as to whether this could be true and if not could explain my why this is impossible (in terms that aren't technical). Once again my understanding of physics is very limited, this is just a logical conclusion that I have come up with based on my understanding of these phenomena. Please enlighten me.

Sincerely,
Puppet1230

2. Welcome to the CosmoQuest forums, Tunafish. As a new member, your posts are held in a queue for moderator approval, so please be patient when you don't see your posts immediately. It won't be long before this spam control measure troubles you no more.

3. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
3,825
Originally Posted by Tunafish
First:
From my understanding of the universe it holds true that as an object is farther away, it seems to move further away exponentionally as time passes (this holds true for any object in any direction). The classical explanation as to why this is the case is that space itself is expanding. Often times people invoke "dark matter" and "dark energy" two concepts that we can prove should exist in order for this to hold true.

Second:
Now here it gets a little fuzzy as my understanding of this subject is very limited and comprehending this information without a background in physics or math makes it very difficult to understand what is going on. (need help on this). Now as far as I understand there are multiple ways to find how much "stuff" or matter is inside a galaxy, one being looking at the light emitted from the galaxy and from there inferring the gravity of each single object visisble, another being looking at the rotation speed of said galaxy and then inferring how much stuff should be inside this galaxy based on the speed of its rotation. As far as my understanding of this is that when looking at the rotations speed shows about 5x as much stuff then the measurement performed by looking at the visible light in the galaxy. Therefore there must be additional objects that have gravity but are invisible hence the notion of dark matter is introduced. Note once again I might be horribly wrong on this subject but this is my understanding of it.

Third:
Gravity bends light
Fairly correct up to there.
1. Hubble's law is the observation that galaxies have greater redshift (velocity) as their distance fro us increases. This is a linear relationship up to large distances.
2. That is 1 of the 11 lines of observational evidence for dark matter.
3. Mass (and energy) bend light.

However your prepositions do not follow. Hubble's law is only one of the many lines of evidence for an expanding universe. For example, the existence of the CMB tells us that the universe was once in a hot dense state.

For a first approximation the universe has mass uniformly spread and there is no bending of light. Add galaxies and there is a tiny bit of random bending of light which we are sometimes lucky to detect . Add galaxy clusters and more random bending of light. Add super-clusters and super-voids and we can see the light from the CMB being bent. We see light from a galaxy directly without any measurable bending of the light.

Galaxies can gain mass by merging with other galaxies, etc. over periods of many millions of years. Galaxy rotations curves are the measured Doppler shifts of stars and gas in galaxies over scales of days or weeks. During that time the mass of a galaxy is constant. And there are the other 10 lines of evidence. Your proposition is wrong.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Jul-18 at 04:44 AM.

4. I'm no expert, but....

Most of the universe is "empty" space. Light is not bent to any appreciable degree unless it travels very close to a massive object. We can indeed sometimes determine how much further the light from certain images has traveled by analyzing the different images caused by strong gravitational lenses. AFAIK, these differences are measured in years, or 10s of years. Such a difference is insignificant with respect to the images' redshifts, and another reason your proposition is faulty.

5. This thread appears to have been abandoned by the OP, so it is closed.

Tunafish,

If you wish to resume discussion before its July 28th expiration date, please report this post and ask that it be reopened.

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•