• Yes it does

    People get confuse that Dark matter doesn’t exist because Dark matter is space matter we cannot see and, unlike stars and galaxies, it does not give off light. The only way that you could be able to see a Dark matter is to use a cosmic microwave background radiation. That is the only reason people doesn’t believe in dark matter because they can’t see it with a naked eye!

  • Yes & No

    Yes because some how there is a substance of matter that is pushing galaxies and clusters apart and forming voids at extremely high rates through out the cosmos, so that stuff is something, its dark matter/energy, but the thing is no one knows what it is actually made of.

  • I believe it does.

    I am far from an expert on dark matter but it seems to be something that is being proved by the top minds across the world.

    As we get a better understanding over how space and time work we'll gain more understanding of dark matter, it's something that will need funding and open minded people to explore.

    There might be good uses for dark matter in the future if we can learn to harness it's energy.

  • Yes, it exerts forces on other objects

    Based on our current understanding of physics, dark matter is the only force that explains the current state of the universe. It can be measured by the effects on other object, gravitational pulls, etc. Until new science comes along or we're able to revolutionize the world of physics, dark matter is the only explainable phenomenon.

  • The only real theory to explain the quickening of the expansion of the universe and the velocity of the rotation of galaxies.

    A theory from the early 30s briefly mentioned the possible existence of another "substance" which we've began calling dark matter in the 60's. The reason we started to really acknowledge the idea of dark energy was as a result of that if we take into consideration the gravitational pull of all known matter the universe should be shrinking again, however its actually accelerating at an increasing rate. This posses that as energy cannot be created or destroyed that this energy must have always been here in a form that we just cannot measure, hence "dark energy".

    As for dark matter itself if you measure the mass and density of stars and planets in galaxies you can get their gravitational pull, this combined with their measurable velocity you can distinguish the path they'd take. However many objects we've found are actually exceeding a speed of which would keep them in a relatively consistent orbit. This shows that to prevent there masses slingshotting out into space another force must be there, as anyone who understands circular motion could tell you. This then jumpstarted the theory of dark matter as a substance which cannot be detected in the first 4 dimensions but can be measured by its gravitational pull.

    This however does all rely on the laws that newton put into place.

  • Dark Matter Exists

    Dark Matter is a very difficult concept and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be something completely different than what we think it is, but it is obviously that there is something out there. When we look out there, the gravitational pulls and the missing lights indicate that there is something there.

  • An Alternative gravity theory of Dark Matter

    I think that at a certain galactic distance, gravity reverses and the galaxies begin pushing against each other. This would do away with cosmological expansion, dark matter, and dark energy. This is a claim that can be easily tested:

    A revised gravity equation looks like this (I have made an adjustment compared to my last version):

    F = (1.047 X 10^-17) m1m2 [-cos(Θ)] / r^2 where tan Θ = r / (1.419 X 10^22)

    By playing with the constants, this equation can be fitted and tested against the data of galactic motion. It means that at a certain distance, gravity will reverse and the galaxies will be pushing against each other. This pressure against each other does away with the need for dark matter or dark energy in cosmology.

    So the equation can be tested against current data to see if it fits. This equation also predicts that galaxies near the edge of the universe will be deformed -- concave with the concavity pointing towards the center of the universe.

    This equation also predicts the existence of isolated galaxies that are far away from other galaxies, that would behave normally without the need to posit dark matter. An example of this type of galaxy is NGC1052–DF2 . Talked about in this article:


    Please test this equation to see if slight adjustment of the constants will account for galactic motion or not. If it does, then proceed to the rest of the theory.

    If it cannot, then the theory can be dismissed. Either way, I would like to know -- but I would not be convinced with a simple "absurd!" or dismissal unless it has been tested out.

    If it is true that the motion of galaxies can be modeled in this way, I would ask that you take a look at the explanation in this theory:


  • A Big Bang Debate

    The need for dark matter and dark energy is because established physics chose Big Bang over Tired Light. BB at the time appeared favorable to a Tolman Brightness Test whereby the FLWR Metric was formulated to comply with the Hubble Constant as constant with distance for a particular time of creation. However, the HC is expected to decrease in the future as the distances between galaxies increase. Observation and theory now indicate the HC was less in the past. Dark energy is assumed for the cause. However, more matter is also needed to maintain the conditions of homogeneity and isotropy according to spacetime curvature, and to explain why spiral galaxies rotate faster than their observed mass allows. If the establishment had chosen TL instead of BB, then the HC would be less at longer distance of the BB past. Moreover, without the singularity and a modified Black Hole emitting Hawking radiation, unification of relativity and QED can be obtained by merely applying a Gravitational Potentials theorem in analogy to the Addition of Velocities theorem of SRT.

  • No because I said so

    Ice Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツIce Tea! ツ Ice Tea! ツ Ice Tea! ツ

  • No frequencies man!

    All materials we know either emit or reflect electromagnetic waves in the form of visible/invisible light, photons, or electrons. How could a material that allegedly makes up such a vast proportion of the universe not have these properties? I think the physicists have erred so bad on this one, they're blinded by their own science. Simply put, the current science must be wrong.

  • Has no influence on any matter we can observe and measure separately and competing models can provide a better explanation for the macroscopic observations

    I'm sorry, but "Dark Matter" isn't even a real theory yet. To be a theory it must be substantiated by evidence. Until then it is at best a hypothesis, but that is even a stretch when there is evidence against it's existence.

    For example, if 80% of even just this Galaxy was invisible matter with gravitational influence it's effects would be measurable. Scientists actually tried to study the Dark Matter influence by measuring our sun. The result? The influence Dark Matter had on our Sun was smaller than the margin of error. In other words, there is no Dark Matter within our around our solar system. Additionally, there are other astronomical phenomena that contradict the Dark Matter explanation. There are free stars flying out of our solar system and as far as we can tell they are not being influenced by dark matter. Not even the slightest curve or slow down. No matter where we look there is no evidence of dark matter on any microcosmic level.

    So if Dark Matter is real why it's influence unobservable no matter where we look? You can't have a gravitational force greater than all the stars and planets and black holes in a galaxy and expect it to not do anything. We know Black Holes exist because we can actually observe their influence, but that isn't true of dark matter.

    The reason why "Dark Matter" as an idea ever came about was because simulations showed that the matter in the galaxy wasn't heavy enough to hold it all together so they made up matter out of nothing and then the simulation worked. That's not evidence though. That's just a simulation variable. The problem with relying on the simulations is that many other approaches also work. For example, the multidimensional model also holds the universe together. At higher dimensions gravity would be cease to be a weak force and even the missing matter from cosmic background radiation can be accounted for.

    Of course, neither model has enough evidence to be a theory, but since there is evidence against dark matter I regard dark matter as nonsense and the multidimensional model as a hypothesis. People throw this "theory" word around way too much. Yes, there is a phenomena, and yes there has to be an explanation, but we don't know which explanation is real. It cannot progress from a Hypothesis to a Theory at the stage it is in.

    Furthermore, It has the feel of a religion now. I mean, think about it. This is something which cannot be observed or measured directly or indirectly in any way. We attribute natural phenomena that we can measure to it's influence as evidence of it's existence without considering what else could be causing it. In physics class the answer I was given when I objected was that it's accepted because it's the simpler explanation, but simple isn't always right. The idea that rats magically manifested from dirty rags was a simpler idea and that wasn't right.

  • Creating a Universe where 96% of it is missing to explain anomalies is a cottage industry

    There are other simpler solutions such as modified gravity and time may not be a constant. Hundreds of scientists however are getting well funded to waste money in pursuit of something that has been demonstrated in experiment after experiment not to exist. With each failed result the answer is always the same, "we need a higher fidelity test." The pressure to publish has created a scientific community that is acting irresponsibly and in their own best interests.

  • Dark matter has no density and therefore cannot produce gravity

    Gravity must have an object to produce it which dark matter does not provide and cannot provide because it is not an actual object. The whole theory is flawed and needs to be done away with or improved. Example: a planet produces gravity because it is solid and has density. A singularity produces gravity because it is almost infinitely dense. You can't see dark matter apparently, you can't feel it so to speak then its just proof that mainstream atheist scientists are grasping at straws now and proof of nothing else

  • Can't prove a negative

    Dark matter is a convenient theory for scientists who have no idea how stars work. They alone carry the burden to prove its existence and so far zip.They might want to try a whole new cosmology.
    Actually they don't have to go that far. Try something simple like explaining how the sun shines without violating basic laws of thermodynamics

  • Dark matter does not exist.

    It is a variable added to keep their theories from falling apart such as the theory of stars forming from hydrogen gas, they need a concentrated form of gravity. Galaxies should of flew apart billions of years ago with out dark matter, just to name a couple of theories that make up the backbone of modern "science".

  • Maybe, maybe not

    I'm pretty sure this really hasn't been proven yet, but the theory is there. Since we really haven't figured it out yet, I think it would be best to not really go around and say it's true. I think the science community needs to do more tests and research before they can come to a real conclusion.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.