Is MPhil more worthy and more focus than a PhD?

Does "dark matter" make up large proportions of those galaxies?

Newtonian gravity behaves differently at very large scales of mass and distance, i.e., galaxy scales, in contra-indication to the assumption that massive quantities of invisible, or "dark matter" make up large proportions of those galaxies.

… Read more

Preston Guynn added a reply

Your discussion statement question is:

The phrase "Newtonian gravity" refers to a very specific equation relating mass and acceleration, so saying it behaves differently under some condition is not a correct usage of the phrase. Newtonian gravity is Newtonian gravity, and it gives incorrect results at scales greater than the solar system. There is a significant body of research on modified Newtonian gravity, and you can find it by searching on the phrase or "MOND".

Your question"Does dark matter make up large proportion of those galaxies?" is the question that numerous branches of research are investigating either experimentally or theoretically. First of course is the search for any experimental evidence of any matter that couples gravitationally but not via the electromagnetic field. No evidence of any such matter has been found. Second is that there is no such matter expected from current models such as the so called standard model of physics.

Even if there were some type of matter that couples gravitationally but not via electro-magnetic coupling, the number of non-conforming physical observations cannot be solved by such matter. The galaxies not only have a rotation that is unexplained by GR, but the galaxies interacting in clusters, and the clusters of galaxies interacting in superclusters could not simultaneously be described by such matter regardless of its distribution patterns. Additionally, gravitational lensing observed due to galaxies and clusters of galaxies could not be described by GR simply by applying such conjectured matter. The number of non-conforming observations cannot be solved by adding matter or energy, so general relativity should be abandoned as a dead end. Newtonian gravity does not apply, and no known modification of Newtonian gravity describes all the observed interactions. Modern physics will only progress when GR is abandoned and my research based on special relativity is adopted. See

Article The Physical Basis of the Fine Structure Constant in Relativ...

Article Thomas Precession is the Basis for the Structure of Matter and Space

For some insights on dark matter see :

Article Cold Dark Matter and Strong Gravitational Lensing: Concord o...

Abbas Kashani added a reply

Dear and respected Preston Gan

Researcher in Guynn Engineering

United States of America

You answered my question very well. Thank you very much for your excellent and technical explanations. You made me proud and I am happy for you because you are a great scientist. Thank you Abbas

Jouni Laine added a reply

According to my theory, the influence of quantum entanglement on spacetime curvature could provide an alternative explanation for the gravitational effects attributed to dark matter in galaxies. Traditional models suggest that large proportions of invisible “dark matter” are required to account for the observed gravitational behavior at galaxy scales. This is because, under Newtonian gravity, the visible mass of galaxies cannot account for the gravitational forces observed, leading to the hypothesis that there must be additional, unseen mass—dark matter.

However, my research proposes that quantum entanglement could be influencing spacetime curvature in a way that mimics the effects of this “missing” dark matter. If quantum entanglement can alter the curvature of spacetime, it might enhance the gravitational pull within galaxies without requiring massive quantities of unseen matter. This would mean that the observed discrepancies at galactic scales could be due to quantum entanglement effects rather than vast amounts of dark matter.

In this view, while dark matter has been the dominant explanation, it might be possible that the gravitational anomalies are instead the result of entanglement-induced modifications to spacetime. This theory could offer a new perspective on why Newtonian gravity appears to behave differently at large scales, suggesting that the need for dark matter could be reconsidered in light of quantum effects on gravity.

Abbas Kashani added a reply

Dear Johnny Line, greetings and respect

You answered my question very well. Thank you very much for your excellent and technical explanations. You made me proud and I am happy for you because you are a great scientist. Thank you Abbas

Forrest Noble added a reply

2 days ago

No ! Dark Matter, like Dark Energy, is simply a 'place holder' for an unknown source of energy which cannot presently be explained excepting via speculation and related hypotheses. If either or both do not exist, their replacement will do damage to, or also cause the replacement of mainstream cosmology, by far simpler but presently unrecognized alternative(s).

Courtney Seligman added a reply

4 hours ago

It is conceivable that the constant "G" varies according to where you are, but the only way to prove that is to be somewhere so far from here that we will never be able to prove it, which makes it a novel but scientifically pointless proposition (if there is no way to prove something, it cannot be considered scientifically reasonable because then you can invent thousands of explanations, only one of which (if any) that can be correct, which is a doomed explanation). "G" is certainly a constant everywhere within 30 thousand light-years from us, and there will never be any way to measure its value even at that distance, let alone hundreds of thousands or millions of light-years distant. So at the moment I would say that "dark matter" almost certainly exists IN GALAXIES, and possibly BETWEEN GALAXIES IN RICH CLUSTERS OF GALAXIES. However, whether it exists in the huge amounts posited by cosmologists EVERYWHERE is certainly "up in the air" in every sense of the phrase. And I'm reasonably certain that "dark energy" is a fantasy made up to explain something that doesn't need explaining.

Forrest Noble added a reply

Newton's gravity is correct but incomplete in that it doesn't include time, energy, distortions of space, etc. all of which can make a difference in calculations under certain circumstances. The concluding assumption is that Einstein's gravity is correct.

But at the scale of galaxies neither theory is even close, off by a factor of 2 to 3 concerning some spiral galaxy velocities. To account for this great error of gravity theory, dark matter was invented and has become the favored explanation. Since dark matter has never been directly observed, some consider it only a temporary place holder for the real, valid explanation.

Mainstream cosmology has adopted dark matter as part of its theory, even though there are a great many other possible explanations to explain what is being observed other than dark matter. Dark matter has been adopted into mainstream theory because it can also explain the bending of light and field motion within galaxy clusters that other alternative mainstream gravity explanations cannot explain such as Modified Gravity proposals.

When the truth is finally discovered, I believe it will involve simpler explanations that do not require invisible or non-observable entities such as dark matter, dark energy, Inflation, etc.

Andreas Schwarz added a reply

What, if we look at gravitation as a wave-based mechanism?

Since gravitational waves are nothing else than fast disturbations of the gravitational field, and they propagate with c, this is a strong indication that gravitation itself is a based on waves, on wave-energy which is transported backwards to its source oscillator, its source particle and thus its mass.

If this is actually the case, then also resonance will take place:

Assume a galaxy bulge with all its masses. There is a huge number of electrons part of it, each generating a gravitational energy-backflow related to its intrinsic oscillator frequency, which is related to the electron's wavelength.

Assume further, that this gravitational energy-backflow is the more redshifted the farther away it is located from the source. Thus, the related frequency of the far-away location's gravitational energy-backflow is less than that generated by the source electron.

Now, assume that the distance (~1Mpc) generates a redshift of about 1/α=137, the inverse of the fine-structure constant. The frequency is then about 1/137 of the electron's intrinsic frequency. This frequency roughly matches the frequency of the generated gravitational energy-backflow of an electron, bound to a proton, so to speak, its circulation velocity around the proton, which is v=α∙c, thus, it matches the locally generated gravitational energy-backflow of its BOHR radius oscillation.

Due to resonance, this far-away electron, bound to its proton, reacts much stronger to the usually weak gravitational energy-backflow, than normal.

The effect is that the related particles, thus all atoms, masses, "feel" a much stronger gravitation at that distance ( about 1Mpc) from the main galaxie's mass. This is the effect of the so-called "Dark Matter". (We could re-translate "dark" as "resonant"...)

The redshift applied to electron wavelength is calculated as

zₑ = 2π∙K∙r/λₑ

with

K = 2G∙mᵥₑᵥ²/(ħc) = 8.13434(6)∙10⁻³⁴,

r distance between particles, and λₑ the electron's wavlelength. mᵥₑᵥ is the vacuum-energy-related mass (ZPE).

Roughly, with regarding resonance, we get a formula for the effective gravitation similar to

G_eff = Gₒ∙(1+2zₑ∙exp(-αzₑ))

Soumendra Nath Thakur added a reply

Dear Mr. Abbas Kashani

Thank you for your thoughtful observations. Based on recent empirical research, here is an updated perspective:

Dark Matter's Role in Galaxies: The role of dark matter in galaxies has been well established through both historical and recent research. Zwicky’s early work in the 1930s applied the virial theorem to the Coma cluster, revealing a mass far exceeding the visible matter and suggesting the presence of dark matter (Zwicky, 1933, 1937). Vera Rubin’s studies of galactic rotation curves further supported this by demonstrating that the observed rotation speeds could not be explained by visible matter alone (Rubin, 1980). These findings indicate that dark matter constitutes a significant portion of the mass in galaxies and galaxy clusters.

Newtonian Gravity and General Relativity at Large Scales: Newtonian gravity provides a useful approximation for many scenarios, but it does not fully describe gravitational interactions on the scale of galaxy clusters. Chernin (2008) discusses how dark energy introduces antigravitational effects that contrast with Newtonian predictions, necessitating a framework that incorporates both Newtonian mechanics and General Relativity. This research underscores the need for an extended understanding of gravitational effects on large cosmic scales.

Speculative Nature of Dark Matter and Dark Energy: Although dark matter and dark energy are widely accepted concepts, they remain speculative due to the lack of direct detection. Rubin’s work on galaxy rotation curves and Riess et al.'s observations of distant supernovae provide indirect evidence for these components by observing their effects on galaxy dynamics and cosmic expansion (Riess et al., 1998). The ongoing search for direct detection methods and deeper understanding reflects their speculative nature, but they are essential to current cosmological models.

Zwicky (1933, 1937), Rubin (1980), Chernin (2008), and Riess et al. (1998). I hope this updated perspective provides clarity and aligns with the empirical findings.These insights are derived from foundational and recent research, including the works of Professor A. D. Chernin et al.Article Dark energy and the structure of the Coma cluster of galaxies

Best regards, Soumendra Nath Thakur

Chuck A Arize added a reply

Yes, dark matter makes up a large proportion of the mass in galaxies. It is estimated to constitute about 85% of the total mass in the universe and significantly influences the structure and dynamics of galaxies, though it does not emit or interact with electromagnetic radiation like normal matter, making it invisible and detectable only through its gravitational effects.

As far as I am concerned, different scholars argue about irrelevance about the dependent and independent variables about in the analyses process of data descriptively. However, I am still in confusion of the issues. Would help me in this regard?

Hi, i am looking for some guidance with the analysis for my study. I want to test the effect of multidimensional parenting perfectionism on wellbeing. The dependent variables are wellbeing and satisfaction with life, my independent variables are self-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed perfectionism and total perfectionism. I also want to check if the demographic variables influence the results which are age, gender, marital status, employment status and number of children. I also want to check interaction effects for the different dimensions of perfectionism.

The data is not linear so i used spearman's correlation which was statistically significant for socially prescribed and total parent perfectionism with regards to well being and satisfaction with life.

Where do i go from here? I want to test if any of the demographic variables act as mediators for these correlations. I am stuck because regression requires linearity, i tried using the process macro in SPSS but it is not working. Please someone help me!!

Any Universities which accept students to PHD program after a undergraduate degree.

Post-COVID, online platforms or remote learning especially in the education field has accelerated its pace. Is this going to make a lasting impression where educators must adapt to this new way of learning or are we returning back to physical school, physical tutorings or physical lectures in the near future.

Analyzing the effectiveness of apply the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) concept for reducing pre-consumer apparel waste within a Star Fashion Pvt Ltd apparel company.

I am curious to know why most universities recruit assistant professors based on their research publications and papers instead of testing their teaching skills and abilities.

More research papers doesn't necessarily mean good explanation skills right?

Research has proven that successful chemistry cohorts normally spend more time executing practical experiments in the laboratory rather than sitting in the classroom listening to lectures.

Researchers undertaking such job roles, please share your ideas and comments.