15) Dark Matter: Spacetime Cavitation

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

---

All prior posts in this Dark Matter series are summarized as follows:

Spacetime Cavitation Summary

1. Galaxies begin as regions of Spacetime Cavitation resulting from Universal Expansion, often taking on whirlpool-like shapes, which reflect the underlying curvature and motions of Spacetime itself, upon and within which they are formed (see image below).
2. Matter has a counterpart within the realm of non-material Spacetime. When subjected to extreme cavitation, an applicable unit of Spacetime is converted into its material counterpart (mass and/or energy). Said another way: Matter is a byproduct of Spacetime Cavitation. This counterpart is almost always hydrogen and/or radiation.
3. With respect to galaxy formation, hydrogen produced as a byproduct of Spacetime Cavitation, which generally lacks sufficient mass to coalesce into stars by reason of its own gravitation when sparsely distributed, instead reacts to the Gravity Well within which it was produced, spiraling and coalescing to produce stars and the other visible objects within galaxies.
4. Since newly formed galaxies are a result of cavitation, their structures are maintained via the combination of Spacetime Cavitation Gravitation and Mass Gravitation, where, on smaller scales such as solar systems, gravitation is based on mass (spacetime curvature resulting from the presence of mass), but on the larger scales of galaxies, structure is maintained within the underlying, curved Spacetime fabric (spacetime curvature caused by cavitation). In other words, visible matter rests upon the non-flat, preexisting Spacetime structures resulting from cavitation, like bits of Styrofoam floating upon a whirlpool of water draining from a kitchen sink (see this earlier post). This removes the apparent discrepancy between galaxy structure and the seemingly insufficient mass to account for it; and further removes the need for Dark Matter (unless we redefine Dark Matter itself as merely a vacuum of Spacetime, which may be useful. In this, it could be a second classification of gravity, but more on this later).
5. There was no Big Bang as currently theorized. Matter is continuously produced at points of extreme cavitation as a result of the Universe's relentless expansion, analogous (in some respects) to the roiling bubbles produced when gases emerge from solution during extreme depressurization of water.
6. Background microwave radiation thought to be remnants of the Big Bang is likely the result of galactic cavitation.

Definition of a Galaxy
A galaxy is a large region of curved spacetime, which typically takes the shape of a spiral, and often contains matter such as stars, stellar remnants, and an interstellar medium of gas and dust.

---

The next few posts in this Dark Matter series will address the points on this page in more detail. Along the way, we will also look at mainstream observations that seem to support these assertions, which will touch upon the origins of matter, galaxy formation, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB), the CMB Dipole Anisotropy, the blackbody Spectral Energy Distribution (SED), and more.

To be continued.

14) Dark Matter: Galaxy Formation and the Origin of Matter

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

---

Now for the next big question, which has to do with the origin of matter. All along, the assumption has been that all matter present within the Universe originated from the Singularity that preceded the Big Bang. As I have pointed out, I believe this theory is wrong (Big Bang theory, that is) for many reasons. I will touch upon a couple of them now, and a few more in a following post.

If all the matter within the Universe is nothing more than the debris field of the Big Bang, then what caused the galaxies to form in the first place? I discussed what I believe to be part of the answer to this question in the previous post, finally concluding that Galaxies form at points where Universal Expansion causes spacetime to break down, cavitating into regions of non-flat spacetime. I call this process, Spacetime Cavitation.

I submit that most galaxies form as regions of Spacetime Cavitation like this, and quite possibly, all of them. To fully grasp this concept requires that we no longer think of galaxies as collections of matter, but as regions of curved spacetime that happen to contain matter. Galaxies do not begin as regions of coalescing matter, but as regions of Spacetime Cavitation, which are otherwise largely empty when cavitation begins. In fact, this cavitation probably occurs most commonly in regions that are pristinely empty of matter, but I will touch more upon this in the future.

As a level-set, the following assertions spell this concept out more succinctly:

1. Galaxies are large regions of curved spacetime.
2. Galaxies usually begin at points where Spacetime Cavitation occurs, which is generally caused by the stresses of Universal Expansion.

Origins of Matter

If the matter within galaxies did not originate from the Big Bang, then where did it come from? This leads to the next important part of my hypotheses: I submit that matter forms as a byproduct of Spacetime Cavitation.

We are used to thinking of E = mc² in terms of mass/energy equivalence. The concept of conservation of mass/energy also comes into play here, which tells us that within a closed system, mass is neither created nor destroyed, but only changes state between matter and energy. I believe that this assertion is only partially correct.

I submit that matter, whether in the state of mass or energy, has a counterpart within the realms of non-physical Spacetime, which surfaces during Spacetime Cavitation. When subjected to extreme cavitation, an applicable unit of Spacetime is converted into its physical counterpart (mass and/or energy). Said another way: Matter is a byproduct of Spacetime Cavitation. And, the physical product of this event is almost always hydrogen and/or radiation.

This assertion meshes very well with the BBC News article about the Star-less Galaxy mentioned in the previous post (and I am compelled to mention again, that this expectation predated my discovery of the article). This star-less galaxy has form and structure - and even rotation - but contains no stars. It contains virtually nothing but hydrogen, the lightest element.

If this hydrogen were floating in a region of typically flat, intergalactic space, it would almost certainly continue to do so forever, or until it came into contact with some other influencing factor such as another galaxy (highly unlikely), or simply dissipate. But, at some point in the incomprehensible future, this galaxy will begin to fill with stars, and those stars will pass through their life cycles to produce heavier elements, and within a billion years or so, it will have the appearance of a typical, visible young galaxy, full of incubating stars. These stars would have no chance of forming were it not that this body of hydrogen - by no coincidence - is located within a pre-existing galactic structure.

To summarize; with respect to galaxy formation, hydrogen produced as a byproduct of Spacetime Cavitation, which lacks sufficient mass to coalesce into stars by reason of its own gravity when sparsely distributed, reacts to the Gravity Well within which it was produced, spiraling and coalescing to produce stars and other visible objects within galaxies - again, like bits of Styrofoam floating upon a whirlpool of water draining from a kitchen sink.

Rather than thinking of the entire Universe as having a fixed amount of mass and energy, it is likely more accurate to think at galactic scales. Once a galaxy forms and matures to the point where Spacetime Cavitation abates, the galaxy will receive no more hydrogen to fuel its physical processes.

This means that our current understanding of what galaxies are, should change slightly. Wikipedia defines a galaxy like this:

A galaxy is a massive, gravitationally bound system that consists of stars and stellar remnants, an interstellar medium of gas and dust, and an important but poorly understood component tentatively dubbed dark matter.

This definition is good, of course, but not entirely accurate. I submit the following definition:

A galaxy is a large region of curved spacetime, which typically takes the shape of a spiral, and often contains matter such as stars, stellar remnants, and an interstellar medium of gas and dust.

The typical lifecycle of a galaxy is as follows (actually, how galaxies may end their lives is not included here):

1. Galaxies first appear at points where Universal Expansion stresses the spacetime fabric to the point of cavitation; Spacetime Cavitation.
2. The region of spacetime where cavitation occurs generally, but not necessarily, responds by taking the shape of a rotating spiral. The non-flat shape of these spirals manifest as gravitation in much the same way that spacetime curvature resulting from the presence of mass also produces gravity.
3. Matter (usually hydrogen) produced as a byproduct of cavitation, responds to the gravitational influences of locally curved spacetime, naturally collecting within the trenches of the underlying spirals (the spiral arms), where it begins to coalesce into stars. As the stars continue to grow, they produce areas of increased spacetime curvature - localized Gravity Wells - that continue to accelerate their own formation and the birth of Solar Systems.
4. The birth of new galaxies, encompassing the initial Spacetime Cavitation event, production of matter, and continuing to the point where stars begin to form in earnest, typically spans a period of 200 million years.
5. Matter continues to follow the gravitational trail from the outer regions of galaxies to eventually form one or more black holes at their centers.

To view the next post in this Dark Matter series, click here.

13) Dark Matter: Sources of Natural Gravitation

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

---

There are two gravitational conditions. First is the common notion of Relativistic gravitation, which tells us that gravity is a result of the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass. This form of gravity is most familiar to us. When we look up at the night sky, we are peering at the stars from deep within the earth’s Gravity Well, which also happens to be fairly deep within the Sun’s Gravity Well.

Kepler’s Laws of planetary motion, Einstein’s General Relativity, and even Newtonian Gravitation all provide good frameworks for understanding what we see in the skies, especially when it comes to the behavior of nearby celestial objects like the planets in our Solar System.

However, applying what we have learned about gravitation to our observations of other galaxies, especially spiral galaxies, we find that they do not seem to behave as we expect. As we have discussed at length, there simply isn’t enough visible matter within them to account for their ability to hold their shapes as they rotate. We can also reasonably conclude that since this phenomena is at work in virtually every other galaxy we observe, the same conditions almost certainly apply to our own Milky Way Galaxy as well.

If we back up for a moment and recall our earlier discussions about Dark Energy and Universal Expansion, we know that the Universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate; yet our galaxy, which is usually estimated to be around 13 billion years old, isn’t stretching. It appears to rotating happily along, just like the other spiral galaxies we see in the skies.

This means that the galaxies seem to be, somehow, exempt from Universal Expansion, except for the fact that they are drifting away from one another. Internally, they hold together quite well. How could that be? Does the presence of matter somehow cancel the effects of Dark Energy? My guess is that it does not. The presence of matter is certainly related, but as a symptom more than a cause. Here’s how.

In my post on Galaxy Formation and Spacetime Stress, I briefly discussed the question of how substances and objects respond to stress. One of my analogies used water cavitation as an example of how something that is stable under one set of conditions, can break down when pressed beyond certain boundaries or tolerances. I concluded that post with a question: Is it possible that spacetime itself could be susceptible to the stresses of Universal Expansion?

I believe that it must be. Indeed, the enormous stresses of Universal Expansion likely manifests in at least two important ways. One relates to gravitation, and the other relates to the origins of matter.

First, I submit that under the tremendous stress of Universal Expansion, spacetime itself reacts. There may not be a good word with which to label this event. Perhaps we could say that spacetime tears, or collapses, or cavitates. I think that the closest match is cavitation - that spacetime itself distorts and curves into non-flat regions. As we already know, Gravity Wells are said to be regions of curved spacetime. Under Universal Expansion, this curvature exhibits the effects of gravitation (it is non-flat), but without any mass to account for it. Sound familiar?

To briefly summarize this part of the equation, let us say that there are two fundamental sources of natural gravitation, as follows:

1. Gravitation that results from the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass (this generally occurs on smaller scales).
2. Gravitation caused by the deformation of spacetime resulting from Universal Expansion (this generally occurs on larger scales).

This understanding of gravitation constitutes half of what I believe to be a high-level, but complete explanation for Dark Matter. Essentially, galaxies begin as regions of Spacetime Cavitation resulting from Universal Expansion, which often take on whirlpool-like shapes.

Since newly formed galaxies are a result of cavitation, their structures are maintained via the combination of Spacetime Cavitation Gravitation and Mass Gravitation, where, on smaller scales such as solar systems, gravitation is based on mass (spacetime curvature resulting from the presence of mass), but on the larger scales of galaxies, structure is maintained within the underlying, curved Spacetime fabric (spacetime curvature caused by cavitation). In other words, visible matter rests upon the non-flat, preexisting Spacetime structures resulting from cavitation, like bits of Styrofoam floating upon a whirlpool of water draining from a kitchen sink. This removes the apparent discrepancy between galaxy structure and the insufficient mass to account for it; and further removes the need for Dark Matter altogether (unless we redefine Dark Matter itself as merely a vacuum of Spacetime, which may be useful, but more on this later).

This means that galaxies could be more accurately thought of as regions of curved spacetime - enormous Gravity Wells - rather than as collections of matter (we will discuss how matter plays into this in the next post). The relatively even distribution of galaxies throughout the observable Universe is unlikely to be a quirk of the Big Bang. I submit that galaxies simply form where the spacetime fabric breaks down (cavitates) at points of extreme stress, most likely as a result of Universal Expansion, in a way very analogous to how gasses form in water when decompressed.

Interestingly, astronomers have discovered an object in space that directly supports this hypotheses, which was written about in a BBC News article in February, 2005. The article discusses a region of space that possesses the form and structure of a rotating galaxy, but without stars. Instead, the region is filled with hydrogen - a hydrogen disc. I will discuss the importance of this discovery, and its particular relevance to Dark Matter in the next post.

A quick note: The star-less galaxy above was discovered several years after I formed the Dark Matter hypotheses discussed in this blog series. When I happened across the article, which discusses the presence of an unmistakable galactic structure containing virtually nothing except hydrogen, it aligned so perfectly with my hypotheses that I was astounded. I had prior, no expectation or hope that such direct and supporting evidence would surface in my lifetime. As we will discuss in the next post, the presence of hydrogen in this star-less galaxy is key and critical to the completion of the Dark Matter question.

To view the next post in this series, click here.

12) Dark Matter: Mass/Energy Equivalence

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

---

We should remember that in every scenario where a substance or object succumbs to stress in a way that changes its nature (as discussed in the previous post), the principles of mass/energy equivalence remain in play, as do those of mass/energy conservation. For instance, the sun’s nuclear furnace works by compressing hydrogen atoms into helium (although, not quite so directly), resulting in a loss of mass in the form of energy. But, using the handy equation, E = mc², we can account for the mass of the original hydrogen atoms even after this fusion takes place.

It is important to understand something else about mass/energy equivalence too, which is that it does not imply that mass and energy can be converted between states in some trivial way; it says that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. One way of thinking about this is to consider unit of measure conversions: one gallon of liquid is equal to 3.785 liters. Although this analogy is far from perfect (it doesn’t entirely hold up since mass and energy are not the same things), it does provide a decent insight into what mass/energy equivalence communicates. In a sense, they are two measures of the same quantity. Furthermore, within a closed system, mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.

Oddly, the principles of conservation of mass and energy are part of the supporting evidence for a Big Bang – they imply that everything that is now, must have always existed. The only thing we can assume then, is that all matter in the Universe must have existed within the singularity that preceded the Big Bang. Part of my intent here, of course, is to show that this is probably not true (and, given the current subject, I must point out that my use of the word probably is non-scientific).

So, where does this leave us? Throughout the many posts of this series on Dark Matter, we’ve talked about Gravity Wells, Gravity Bowls, the expanding Universe (Dark Energy), the rigidity of spacetime, E = mc², and now, stresses and the conservation of mass/energy. What does it all add up to? To find out, we must add a final piece to the puzzle.

To view the next post in this series, click here.

11) Dark Matter: Galaxy Formation and Spacetime Stress

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

---

In the previous post, I discussed some of the oddities revealed in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field Image. Specifically, the strange occurrence of what appear to be galaxies of vastly different ages occupying the same regions of space, within what is believed to be a snapshot of the early Universe itself (or, at least part of it). At the end of that post, I concluded that the most straightforward solution to this mystery lies in the likelihood that these galaxies formed in place (at their relative positions) as a result of something other than the Big Bang. The next question is, if the matter from which these galaxies were formed did not originate from the Big Bang, then where did it come from? And, what triggered their formation?

Let us think about the rigidity of space and Universal expansion again. As we discussed in a prior post, spacetime is incredibly rigid, but it expands nonetheless. And, despite this unrelenting and ever-accelerating expansion, the matter within it condenses into Galaxies rather than evaporating into space. Strange. Perhaps another analogy would be useful here.

Imagine taking a typical balloon filled with air, and then drawing several quarter-sized circles on it (the circles will be our galaxies).  If we then let the air out of the balloon, the circles will get smaller and move closer together until they become a cluster of small dots like Cheerios.

Now, what if we refill the balloon? As the balloon grows in size, the circles will expand away from one another in much the same way that galaxies in the observable Universe do. Interestingly, as this happens there will be no apparent central point away from which the circles move; instead, they will all simply drift away from one another.

Actually, the central point could be the center of the balloon, but this analogy is meant to be reflected by the balloon’s surface.

This analogy is quite good for conceptualizing Universal Expansion, except for one problem: as the balloon swells in size, the circles also enlarge. Conversely, galaxies do not grow as the Universe expands. Imagine blowing up this same balloon, but rather than the circles growing as the balloon gets larger, they move away from one another but remain the same size or even shrink.

Counter-intuitive, to say the least.

Since we have seen that familiar terms such as warping, stretching and bending can be applied to Spacetime (think Gravity Wells), we may wonder whether other physical attributes can also be applied, if only in metaphor. We know, for instance, that there are a couple ways to make water boil. One is to heat it up, but another is to subject it to near-zero pressure. If water is subjected to a near-perfect vacuum, it will begin to boil as the oxygen and hydrogen within it evaporate into gas. So, what appears to be a very stable substance under normal environmental conditions (at least in the typical kitchen), can be placed under more extreme conditions that cause it to break down in some way.

If you place the palms of your hands together so that they form a somewhat airtight seal and then cup them, you will experience the suction of air as the pressure between your palms drops below the pressure of the surrounding area. Of course, no matter how hard you try, you will be unable to produce a complete vacuum - or even a marginally strong one.

Yet, there are more extreme conditions under which cavitation occurs in more noticeable, and in some cases, damaging ways; such as on propellers and in pumps. Part of the trick to making submarines stealthy, for instance, lies in minimizing cavitation that can result when propeller blades slice through water at high speeds. Low pressure builds on the backside of the propellers, which produces noisy bubbles – a bad thing if you hope to remain undetected.

Could there be a counterpart to this in the realms of spacetime? Everything has boundaries at which it will succumb to stress and begin behaving outside of what we may think of as its typical character. Even a simple piece of steel will break if subjected to a greater force than it can withstand. Burning wood produces heat energy, but also destroys the wood. Compressing matter beyond a certain point results in fusion. In truth, the natural behavior of any substance is as much a function of environment as anything intrinsic.

So, in any case and for any substance, the characteristics of an object are changed by pressing it beyond certain limits - by changing its environment. Now, how would this apply to Universal expansion? What happens when something as incomprehensibly stiff as spacetime is eternally and relentlessly stretched? Can the fabric of space - spacetime itself - be stressed? And if so, what would happen?

To view the next post in this series, click here.

10) Dark Matter: Odd Galactic Neighborhoods

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

A quick comment before continuing
This section can be safely skipped if you like. Just scroll down to the start of the actual article below the horizontal line.

I’ve searched around the web here and there on matters related to physics, the Big Bang, Dark Matter, etc. You have probably done the same or you would not be reading this page. Along the way I’ve found that there are many types of people, and many approaches to attempting to make sense of the realities of life and the Universe. As for me, after years of toil, I have finally adopted what seems to be a reasonable guiding principle for this sort of thing, which is that ideas and beliefs should generally align with observable data.

The prophet, Nahum (from the Bible), said that the clouds are the dust of God’s feet. After living for a number of years on this planet - and attempting to make some sense of it myself - I have concluded that Nahum was mistaken. There are certainly dust clouds here and there, but the ones I believe Nahum was referring to certainly aren’t made of dust. And, even if they were, it's seems odd that even though these clouds are plainly visible, God's feet somehow, are not. Interestingly, I know of more than a few individuals who would disagree with me.

In truth, I am still somewhat amazed at how common it is for people to insist that facts bend to match a given hypothesis or cherished belief rather than the other way around. So, before continuing, I should plainly state that brushing aside inconvenient facts because they do not support a treasured idea is of absolutely no value. It's certainly not what I intend to do here, even to the slightest degree, either in favor of my own hypotheses or against any other (think, the Big Bang).

Having said this, when a hypothesis or theory begins to gain ground and hold its own for a period of time, any new evidence that looks as if it may contradict it must be given patient scrutiny. After all, if a theory successfully answers 100 questions, but cannot answer the 101st, it is certainly worth taking a closer look before deciding the theory is wrong.

In my opinion, such is the case with Big Bang theory. It has held up for quite a while; longer than I would have expected (and longer than it should have, in my humble opinion). Indeed, it does answer many questions. But, because of this, some of the more inconvenient questions that it does not adequately answer are rarely seen as sufficient cause to doubt it.

I understand and appreciate the wisdom in that. But, sooner or later we have to find resolution. Are the questions wrong? Are our observations incorrect? Have we overlooked something? Or, could there a better explanation, a better theory?

---

If there isn't enough observable matter within a given galaxy to account for the fact that it does not simply fall apart, then what explanation (other than Dark Matter) is there for its formation? Is it possible that the galaxies formed in place, at their relative positions within the Universe, rather than being part of the debris field of some enormous explosion (the Big Bang)? It seems worth considering. Of course, if we do consider it, we must then ask where all the matter did come from.

Indeed we do.

For some, this question is enough in itself to dismiss any argument against the Big Bang altogether. Yet, I must hold out that to the open-minded, considering this question is no less sensible than believing that all the matter in the Universe originated from a singularity.

Speculation like this leads to many valid questions, not the least of which being, "What about all the other supporting evidence for the Big Bang?" A fair question to be sure, but that's what we're doing here; we're attempting to see if another hypothesis matches that evidence as well, or even better. Maybe there isn't one, but maybe there is. So, let us state the question a little more clearly: If there was no Big Bang, where did all the matter in the Universe come from?

Let us begin by considering the Hubble Ultra Deep Field Image, which shows thousands of distant galaxies glowing faintly against a deep-black backdrop. Oddly, the image seems rather unremarkable until you realize that these aren't just any galaxies - they are the most distant galaxies we have been able to photograph to date. In fact, if you haven't looked into it, click on the link above to learn more - it is well worth the time.

The actual distance to the galaxies in this image is not entirely straightforward. Yes, it took 13.2 billion years for the light we are now receiving from them to reach us, but the Universe has been expanding all along too. What's more, that expansion has, as far as we can tell, been accelerating the whole time as well. So, rather than attempt to establish an actual distance (which would add only marginal value to our discussion anyway), let's settle on the fact that they are ancient, and that we have yet to glimpse anything farther away. Perhaps even more importantly with respect to this discussion, is that this photograph is believed by many to show the galaxies as they were when the entire Universe was less than one billion years old (about 800 million years). I happen, not to agree, but won't expound upon the reasons until later.

In light of this, a couple things immediately leap out. First, as expected, this image appears to contain hundreds of young galaxies - that is, galaxies with shapes, colors and sizes to indicate that they were indeed captured during the early years of their formation. No surprise there. But, there are also what appear to be very mature galaxies, such as, HUDF-JD2 and others in the same region. This is odd indeed. Why would galaxies from largely the same region, and such an early period in the history of the Universe differ so greatly?

One possibility is that the more mature galaxies aren't as far away as they seem. We are not able to know for sure as yet, but astronomers believe they are. There is also the possibility that these galaxies just happened to have a larger starting mass than their neighbors, which could have accelerated their formation, in which case they are not older, but only further developed. This actually strikes me as quite plausible too.

But, what if they are older? How could galaxies from what appears to be the same region of space be of such vastly different ages? Are they drifters, just passing through the neighborhood? The evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Their redshifts, for instance, suggest that they are native to the regions where they appear.

The only explanation for this phenomenon having any degree of elegance is that they formed in place, but at different times. The only difficulty with this otherwise simple solution is the Big Bang. If all of these galaxies, old and new, are products of the same Big Bang event, then we have a disconnect - since we would naturally and quite reasonably expect all of them to be about the same age. On the other hand, if the galaxies formed place (at their relative positions) as a result of some other cause, then the mystery becomes....less mysterious - we need only discover what triggered their formation. And, fortunately, this may not be a difficult puzzle to solve at all.

To see the next post in this series, click here.

9) Dark Matter: Distribution of Matter

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

---

In actuality, speculation about the origins of the Universe is very often speculation about the origins of matter. The Big Bang tracks everything back to a singularity – a single theoretical point where everything that is today, at one time existed in a condensed, ethereal state, which eventually exploded and evolved into the Universe as it is now. Given our observations and reflections on the Universe, this theory seems almost, but not quite reasonable.

First, the Big Bang is essentially targeted at two fundamental and hereto unexplained features of the Universe; 1) that it is expanding and 2) that there seems to be no other reasonable explanation of its origins. Beyond these two conditions, which the Big Bang seems particularly well suited to explain, are other observations that it doesn’t address quite so elegantly.

One of the biggest problems with the Big Bang is the distribution of matter. Deep space astronomy has revealed that there is a remarkably even distribution of galaxies in the Universe, which on first blush, seems to support the notion of a Big Bang. But this first impression quickly breaks down.

Although the galaxies are very evenly distributed, matter as a whole certainly is not. The fact that matter tends to coalesce into galaxies rather than more evenly cover the emptiness of space is inexplicable in terms of the Big Bang (discounting Dark Matter, of course). Given that there appears to be only about 30% of the required matter in a typical galaxy to account for the fact that it has formed at all (as opposed to simply melting into an indistinguishable haze of hydrogen), raises the question of why they exist. Why isn’t space simply filled with a huge cloud of hydrogen rather than well formed galaxies?

Most of us are acquainted with Albert Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc², which expresses energy/mass equivalence (more specifically, that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content). From the launching point of this known formula of nature, physicists have constructed many other theories that have unlocked far reaching areas of natural science, from helping explain the inner workings of the sun's nuclear furnace to constructing the nuclear bomb (some contend that this is not true, but I find it difficult to believe that the principles of conservation of mass and energy did not play a large role here). Indeed, this single equation has proven foundational to much of what we have come to understand about the Universe in which we live.

The underlying premise of this equation is that the Universe contains a fixed amount of matter - whether that matter happens to take the form of mass or energy at a given point in time is, in many respects, irrelevant. The implications of this are somewhat astounding, even to those of us who have long been familiar with them. Even the speed of light as the cosmic speed limit, which on surface appearances seems to be far removed from this equation, is inexorably linked – bound by the implication that the closer in velocity any mass comes to reaching the speed of light, the more of that mass is necessarily converted to energy. So, we are left with an unfortunate speed limit that seems disproportionately slow in comparison with the otherwise huge scale of the Universe.

Special Relativity asserts that matter is not created or destroyed (conversion of mass and energy), but only changes form between mass (relativistic mass) and energy (relativistic energy) . All of this matter, it is presumed, was present in a difficult-to-understand state within the singularity that preceded the Big Bang. And, although the equation, E = mc² has been proven within the realms of matter (with some caveats), it makes no attempts at explaining where mass and energy first came from.

To view the next post in this series, click here.

8) Dark Matter: The Expansion of Space

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

---

So we see that space (the actual spacetime fabric itself) is enormously stiff (or enormously fluid, but that discussion will come later), but that's not all that's strange about it. It is also expanding. This seems a rather odd coupling of characteristics. Anything that is rigid resists bending or flexing in any way, yet the Universe is clearly expanding at an enormous rate.

This forces us to wonder about the nature of that expansion. When we look to the heavens and see that all of the visible galaxies appear to be moving away from us (regardless of where in the sky we look), it begs the question of how they are moving. This may seem to be yet another odd question. If something is moving away from us, does it really matter how it is moving?

In fact, it does. The question boils down to this: Are galaxies moving through space like cars on an interstate, or are they being carried away like suitcases on an enormous, invisible conveyor belt?

This difference is actually quite important. For example, some large airports provide conveyors that people can step onto to be carried forward rather than walking as normal. These conveyors are usually positioned alongside regular thoroughfares where people can choose to walk as well.

If you take a moment to watch the people moving through such an area, it is clear to see that there is a very simple difference between how the people travel forward. Those on the conveyor belt do not have to move at all - they are simply carried forward; whereas the people walking normally on the floor beside them are passing over the surface of the floor beneath them.

It turns out that this analogy works very well when attempting to understand the nature of how the Universe expands. We still do not know why it is expanding, but we do know a little about how it is expanding. The galaxies are not so much moving through space, they are instead being carried along by space. In fact, Hubble's Law talks about structured Spacetime as being the expanding agent upon which matter is resting. Indeed, it is the very Universe itself that is expanding - the matter within it is not simply moving outward into an empty void of nothingness.

With this, we have finally covered enough points to begin constructing a coherent picture of the question we began with: What is Dark Matter? Over the next few posts, we will begin to put these pieces together. As we do, my hope is that the many enigmas surrounding this hard question of science will begin to come into focus.

To view the next post in this series, click here.

7) Dark Matter: The Rigidity of Spacetime

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

---

Note that this post makes reference to a scale-model Solar System, which was introduced in a prior post.

What does this have to do with the rigidity of space? Think of a location that is about 40 miles from where you are at this moment. Even if there is interstate highway between you and this location, it would still take quite a drive to get there - 40 miles is a fair distance. Now, imagine that the entire region around you is covered with a layer of insulating foam, which is 50 feet thick (think of something you might find in the cushions of a sofa).

If you were to set a golf ball on the foam in front of you, it would have no reason to roll in any particular direction (for this example, assume that you are somehow hovering above the foam, and that there is nothing else nearby to disrupt its smooth, flat surface).

Now, let's say that 40 miles away there is an enormous floating crane, which is holding a scale model of the sun (a spheroid, 36 feet in diameter) suspended in the air. A sphere this size would have a volume of roughly 24,429 cubic feet.

To stay somewhat true to the model, let's say that the sphere is filled with liquid hydrogen. Even though hydrogen is much lighter than, say, water, a sphere this size would still weigh just under 54 tons on earth.

Now, if the crane were to begin slowly lowering the model sun into the foam, it would sink completely to the bottom and become enveloped within it. It is also safe to say that the depression created by the model sun, which would have the appearance of a gravity well, would not impact our golf ball (40 miles away) in the least. In fact, from this distance there would be no way to know that anything had happened at all. All of the impacts of the presence of the model sun would be absorbed by the surrounding foam, and probably would not produce any observable effects reaching more than a few dozen yards.

Clearly, foam is too soft a medium to transfer the effects of the deformation caused by the model sun for very far at all.

What if the region around us were overlaid with an enormous, perfectly flat steel plate rather than foam (that is, following the curvature of the earth's surface). This would certainly change the analogy some. Even then, it is unlikely that even the highest grade, densest steel could convey the impacts of the resulting depression far enough to reach the golf ball and cause it to roll. We would be closer to doing so, however, since the steel would probably be more than dense enough to transmit the vibrations caused by the event for 40 miles.

Still, if we imagine the plate of steel being 80 miles in diameter, into which we forcefully create a depression of 18' (half the diameter of the model sun), could we expect the golf ball (even one without dimples) to roll towards it? Even if the steel plate were only a few feet thick rather than fifty, it is not likely that the golf ball would roll at all. The steel would bend and absorb the impacts of the depression well before they reached 40 miles - they would simply dissipate.

This leaves us wondering: What material could be so strong that a depression of only 18' in its center could cause a golf ball, 40 miles away, to roll towards it? Surprisingly, there is something.

It is estimated that the spacetime fabric is a billion billion billion times stiffer than steel (Ripples on a Cosmic Sea, David Blair and Geoff McNamara). That's a big number (₁₀⁴³). In the coming posts, we will begin to see that this rigidity is more than only another fascinating cosmic detail. It is a fundamental, pervasive and highly influential factor in the behavior of the Universe, having implications that can help explain some of its more difficult-to-understand characteristics, and move us closer to understanding certain mysteries that only come to light when we appreciate its influence.

Note: Many things in physics have no direct correlation to what we might think of as common reality. Analogies of bowls, rubber sheets, foam and trampolines are rather crude instruments of communication in any discussion about things as abstract as Dark Matter and spacetime.

We should only know that the goal of this discussion is not to painstakingly create perfect illustrations, or to exhaustively point out the flaws in less-than-perfect ones. It is, of course, about the riddle of Dark Matter. These illustrations are only disposable artifacts, created and destroyed along the path to what I hope to be a greater insight.

To view the next post in this series, click here.

6) Dark Matter: Kepler's Third Law

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

---

Let us now perform another level-set. So far, we recognize and accept the obvious existence of matter within the Universe. Furthermore, as E=mc² tells us, whether any unit of matter happens to take the form of energy or mass does not subtract from its overall qualification (or quantification) as matter. In other words, mass and energy are interchangeable; they are only different forms of matter. Of course, this is not to suggest that switching between these two states is a trivial thing - far from it, but that is a topic for another day.

Next, we know that empty space isn't exactly empty. Meaning, in a very real sense, there is a spacetime fabric that can be coerced into forming gravity wells, or producing other observable effects such as gravitational lensing. Gravity wells then, are constructed of spacetime itself; they do not fall within the realms of matter, but have identifiable characteristics nonetheless.

General Relativity actually predicts Embedding Diagrams rather than Gravity Wells, but intimates that gravity is an effect of the curvature of spacetime nonetheless. This distinction is actually quite important, but will not become entirely relevant to this discussion until we reach much finer details later in the series.

If we entertain the notion that galactic Gravity Wells may predate the matter within them, it does not necessarily mean that the two cannot be connected in some way. In fact, it seems likely that the two will prove to be closely related (more on this later), given that they usually seem to occur together (galactic gravity wells are usually filled with stars and other matter). To understand this connection, we must take a moment to consider the rigidity of space.

Given that gravity is the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass, it will be useful for us to understand how much force is required to bend it. How rigid is the spacetime fabric?

This calls for another analogy.

At the Lakeview Museum of Arts and Science in Peoria Illinois, there is a partial model of the sun, which is 36 feet in diameter. Scale models of all the planets of our Solar System are then distributed across the region at distances relative to where they would appear if the sun were actually that size. Together, this model of the sun and planets form an enormous scale-model of the Solar System.

In this model, the earth is roughly the size of a small grapefruit (4 inches in diameter), and 3/4 of a mile away from the sun. Pluto, on the other hand, is only the size of a golf ball, and 40 miles away. Of course, we know that there are many Kuiper Belt objects that are much farther away from the sun than Pluto, but they are not depicted in the model (as far as I know).

This model does a great job of bringing the true size of the Solar System into perspective. Even so, it is amazing for reasons far beyond the simple sizes and distances involved. To see how, we must quickly dispense with a commonly held misconception about gravity.

When we observe videos of astronauts in space, it is easy to get the impression that there is no gravity in space at all; that somehow, once astronauts pass above the atmosphere of the earth, gravity is no longer present. But, that is not true at all. Any satellite in orbit (even living ones like astronauts) stay aloft only by striking a correct balance of orbital velocity and distance from the earth. This relationship between velocity, distance and mass is spelled out in Kepler's Third Law of Planetary Motion.

For example, if we could somehow reach into space and slow the velocity of the International Space Station to zero (relative to the surface of the earth), leaving it hanging momentarily in space with no forward momentum, it would fall like a rock. Interestingly, it wouldn't even burn up in the atmosphere on its way to earth, it would simply fall (although it may pick up enough speed before encountering the atmosphere to heat up quite a bit once it did).

Amazingly, this same principle applies even to the earth's orbit around the sun. If the earth's velocity around the sun could somehow be stopped, the earth would plunge into the sun like a meteor. The same goes for any other planet in our Solar System - even one as far away from the sun as Pluto.

Returning to the earlier illustration of rolling a marble around the inner surface of a bowl, this would be like simply setting the marble on the edge of the bowl and letting it roll directly towards the center.

To view the next post in this series, click here.

5) Dark Matter: The Big Bang

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

---

Once we begin considering the possibility that galactic gravity wells could somehow be independent of the matter within them, a few more questions immediately surface.

1. Could gravity wells predate the matter within them?
2. Why does matter seem to always live in these gravity wells rather than more evenly cover the emptiness of intergalactic space?
3. Why do they rotate?
4. And of course, what causes them?

Surprisingly, none of these questions are difficult to answer within the context of our current line of reasoning. There are in fact, agreeable, and what seem to be quite plausible answers to all of them. Note that I will not get to all of these questions within this particular post, but will eventually address each of them within this Dark Matter series.

In terms of the Big Bang, all the matter in the Universe is nothing more than a debris field. On first glance, this debris appears to be remarkably evenly distributed. But on closer inspection we find that although the galaxies that constitute the observable Universe are somewhat evenly distributed, matter on the whole is not. Matter seems to coalesce into galaxies, it does not evenly blanket the emptiness of space.

This seems odd. Without enough matter to account for the gravity within galaxies, why would matter coalesce at all? If all matter did indeed originate from the Big Bang, then it seems that the Universe should appear to be more splotchy that it is; that we should expect to see vast intergalactic regions of space filled with matter (probably hydrogen), interrupted by the presence of an occasional galaxy, which will have swept the immediately-surrounding area clear of debris during its own formation. But we don't; intergalactic space appears to be quite clean.

Perhaps we should take a step back.

If we accept the notion that all matter in the Universe could have begun as a single theoretical point, a singularity (as Big Bang theory suggests), and that everything we see today, at one time existed in this condensed, ethereal state, then we have demonstrated a tremendous ability to accept the extraordinary.

I call hypotheses and theories such as this, Cold Water Theories; meaning, on first exposure to them they are somewhat shocking, but after a while we adjust to them and begin to feel as though they are far less extraordinary than they actually are. This is like diving into a pool of cool water. At first, the experience is quite shocking, but in a matter of only a few minutes we adjust to the temperature and feel quite comfortable.

The notion that all of the matter in the Universe originated from a singularity is an extraordinary concept, to say the very least. It is a Cold Water Theory. It is probably the best explanation so far for how the Universe could have evolved to its current state, especially in light of its phenomenal rate of expansion. And, there certainly are more than a few observations that appear to substantiate the notion of a Big Bang. Things such as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB), the CMB Dipole Anisotropy, the blackbody Spectral Energy Distribution (SED), and so on (I will eventually address each of these and a few others). The question is, is there any value in refuting such a firmly entrenched theory? And if so, what motivation could there be for doing so?

Indeed, there is only one. If Big Bang theory were correct, then I would be perfectly willing to accept it. But the Big Bang is not some random theory, chosen as an arbitrary target from a field of candidate theories to attack; any more than any reasonable person would attack the theories of Gravitation or the Germ Theory of Disease. The problem is that the Big Bang explains some things quite well, but completely misses on many other things - too many things to ignore.

My assertion is that there may be a better explanation; one that raises fewer exceptions than the Big Bang. The Big Bang was a good start, and although it does answer certain questions quite well, there are too many others that it cannot, which cannot be ignored.

Could there be another explanation that plausibly answers these same questions, but also moves us further down the road towards answering some of the questions that Big Bang theory cannot?

I believe there is.

To view the next post in this series, click here.

4) Dark Matter: Another Catalyst

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

---

To this point we have not discussed anything new; only clarified the importance of thinking of gravity in the correct context. Rather than visualizing gravity as the attraction of two bodies, we are now thinking of bodies such as stars and planets traveling along the inside of Gravity Wells - a well-known concept. This means, we have only restated the problem in less abstract, less obscure terms.

It turns out that this analogy holds up remarkably well; like rolling a marble along the inner surface of a physical bowl, it will travel around the bowl until it eventually loses momentum and settles to the bottom, or if it is tossed too hard, roll over the edge of the bowl and escape it altogether. If the marble could somehow be rolled with just the right force (momentarily overlooking friction), it could settle into a point of equilibrium, having just the right amount of angular velocity to maintain a constant distance from the bottom of the bowl and its outer edge.

This perfect velocity, of course, is entirely dependent on the mass of the marble, the slope of the inner surface of the bowl (and, in this analogy, the force of gravity acting upon the marble). If we took the same marble, for example, and tossed it with the same velocity around the inside of a much shallower saucer, that same momentum would cause the marble to escape.

Returning to stars within galaxies, the problem boils down to not being able to explain why the gravity wells underlying them are so deep. In other words, the matter within galaxies does not actually behave strangely at all, we are only struggling to understand the shape of the bowls beneath them. This is very much like finding a deep depression in the center of a trampoline, around which we can roll a tennis ball, but with no bowling ball to account for it. Such an anomaly would hardly be any less mystifying on the scales of trampolines than it is at galactic scales - it would compel us to begin investigating possible causes. Is the trampoline sagging because it is not taut enough, or is some other force acting on it?

So, we must now begin questioning whether the depth of these gravity wells has anything to do with the matter within them. For instance, if we sprinkled tiny bits of Styrofoam on the surface of water draining from a kitchen sink, there would come a point where the water would begin to take the form of a whirlpool. When this happened, the Styrofoam bits would then reflect that underlying structure. If we were to attempt to understand the behavior of the Styrofoam without first understanding the nature and behavior of the water upon which it was floating, we would be eternally mystified.

This analogy seems to hold true for the stars and spiral arms within galaxies as well. If we view them as floating debris upon an underlying, and somewhat independent structure (gravity wells), then suddenly the question of Dark Matter begins to dim even more. If another force, besides mass, can bend space into something akin to gravity wells, what could it be? Have we overlooked something?

We may have, and maybe only because it is too obvious to notice.

To view the next post in this series, click here.

3) Dark Matter: Gravity Wells

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

---

These depressions in space (gravity wells) express the classical understanding of gravitation (Relativistic, not Newtonian), which suggests that gravity is not a measure of the force of attraction between two bodies, it is instead a measure of the force with which two bodies fall into the larger gravity well produced by the overlapping of their two individual gravity wells. This means that we could essentially describe the riddle of Dark Matter in another way, by simply saying that we cannot explain how the gravity depressions in which galaxies exist can be deep enough to prevent the spinning matter within them from over-spilling their boundaries.

So, before tackling the question of how these depressions can exist at all, we should first ask an even more basic question. If we concede that such depressions do exist, then perhaps we can first attempt to understand whether the matter within galaxies behaves according to our understanding of gravitation. In other words, start with the simple acknowledgment that sufficient gravity must be present within these galaxies for them to hold their shapes, even though we do not know why or how. Once we have made this leap, we can then ask ourselves whether the behavior of these galaxies then falls in line with the predictions of Gravitation.

Fortunately, the answer to this question appears to be a rather straightforward, yes. Indications are that once we acknowledge that there is indeed sufficient gravity to hold galaxies together, meaning the gravity wells they are in are in fact, deep enough to contain them, some of the mysteries that have given rise to the theories of Dark Matter already begin to dissipate. Once we clear this hurtle, galaxy rotation and structure is no longer mysterious; we are left only with the need to explain why these wells are deeper than it seems they should be.

The very acknowledgment that gravity wells exist is also acknowledgment that spacetime can bend. Space is far from empty. Hubble's Law postulates the notion of structured Spacetime as the expanding agent upon which matter is resting. And, as we have seen, General Relativity describes gravitation as the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass. This means that the next leap we must take is to begin considering whether spacetime is always flat in the absence of mass. Is matter the only thing that can bend it?

As we continue deconstructing the problem of Dark Matter we find that one of the underlying premises upon which it is based is the assumption that only matter can bend spacetime; that in the absence of matter, spacetime is always perfectly flat. But we must ask, is this a well-founded assumption or an accidental one? If we concede the possibility that the spacetime fabric, which we know to be bendable by matter, could possibly bend for other reasons, then we have already begun to dismantle the need for Dark Matter.

From here we can view the entire problem of galactic structure in terms of that curvature. The only remaining question is what other influences could be bending space? Why are galactic gravity wells so deep?

To view the next post in this series, click here.

2) Dark Matter: From the Beginning

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here.

---

The paradox of Dark Matter leads unavoidably to a few questions. The first and most obvious has to do with galaxy structure. How can galaxies behave as though they contain 70% more mass than they appear to have? What keeps them from simply flying apart? But these questions quickly lead to the even more intriguing question of how they ever formed at all.

Understanding the riddle of Dark Matter requires rewinding the clock all the way back to the Big Bang. Like so many other questions in physics, it can seem odd that two seemingly disconnected topics can end up having such direct bearing on one another. But in the end, unexpected connections like this often end up being a good thing; they are signals, hints that we may have tapped into a fundamental aspect of the Universe that once understood, could help resolve other mysteries as well.

First, what of galaxy structure and rotation? Here the problem is that we cannot detect enough matter to account for the gravity that we know must be present. So, we speculate that something else, something undetectable to us (at least, directly), is producing it.

Perhaps at this point we should quickly address the question of whether some other binding agent, something besides gravity, could be holding galaxies together. Although we are taught never to say never very early in life, it is unlikely to say the least that there could be another force in the Universe grand enough to have these tremendous effects without having been detected before. So, the most reasonable hypothesis seems to be that it is indeed gravity that is holding the galaxies in shape. We'll proceed on this assumption.

The next question then, is where this gravity comes from. In fact, this is the primary question underlying Dark Matter. In the end, the answer to this question may be simple enough to seem almost anticlimactic. Given how perplexing this question has proven to be over the years, it seems that an explanation should be more difficult than it may turn out to be.

First, we must simply understand that according to General Relativity, gravity is not really a force at all; it is a depression in spacetime (more specifically, gravity is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime). To visualize this, we can imagine a tennis ball rolling around a depression in a trampoline, which is caused by the presence of a heavy bowling ball at its center. Remove the bowling ball and the trampoline springs back into shape (the depression disappears) and the tennis ball drifts away.

In this analogy, the depression represents a Gravity Well. The earth and other planets circle the sun by following the path of least resistance, so to speak (a Geodesic), around the gravity well produced by the sun at the center of the Solar System.

So, if we blow this imagery up to galactic scales, we must know that the stars and spiral arms of those galaxies are moving along the inside of a gravity well too, which is like an enormous invisible bowl in space. (Of course, it's not quite that simple, but we'll get into more detail later in this series)

In fact, the trampoline analogy above is taken from the well-known Rubber Sheet example, which is commonly used to illustrate the phenomenon of gravity. Some take issue with the example, first recognizing it as a somewhat effective aid in visualizing gravitation, but then criticize the fact that it does not fully and accurately portray it.

The problem being, of course, that the analogy employs gravity itself as an actor upon the tennis ball. Furthermore, it does not account for the dimension of time (hence, spacetime).

Yes, we know, ...that's why we call it an analogy.

My stance on the issue is that the analogy is a good one, despite clearly falling short of fully demonstrating the true complexities of General Relativity and gravity wells.

To view the next post in this series, click here.

1) Dark Matter

Dark Matter is a special form of matter that is hypothesized to explain certain anomalies in the formation and behavior of galaxies, which has been the subject of a great deal of attention and debate in the areas of physics and astronomy over recent years. Over the next few weeks I plan to publish a series of posts on the subject, and along the way, propose a possible alternative to current, and prevailing thinking on the matter.

The concept of Dark Matter was first put forward as a possible explanation for some of the odd characteristics of galaxies that cannot be fully explained based on current notions of gravitation. In a nutshell, it is presumed that gravity is the only binding agent that holds galaxies together. Based on this simple and reasonable assumption, it seems obvious that there must then be enough matter in any given galaxy to account for the fact that it is able to hold its shape.

The problem is that given the rotation of most galaxies (maybe all), there does not seem to be enough matter within them to account for the fact that they do not simply fly apart. If we imagine rotating galaxies as enormous carousels, there is simply not enough detectable matter to create the amount of gravity required to hold them together. This simple fact is intriguing enough, but even more remarkable when we realize that this discrepancy is anything but small. Estimates vary, but overall it seems that a typical galaxy contains only 30% or less of the matter required to hold its shape.

Enter Dark Matter. Dark Matter is a type of matter that has been hypothesized to explain this discrepancy. Dark Matter particles are thought to be virtually undetectable in all respects except for the obvious effects of their gravitational influence on normal matter, yet constitute 70% or more of a typical galaxy's total mass.

Astronomers and physicists have been trying to detect, and otherwise prove or disprove the existence of Dark Matter particles for years. Certainly, no one can say for sure that they don’t exist, especially since their existence would conveniently explain what seems, in all other ways, to be inexplicable. But, drawing for a moment upon the sensibilities of Occam’s Razor, this explanation seems a little too tidy somehow.

Indeed, this is a common pitfall in all research-related disciplines; that the solution to a given problem is often envisioned as a mere reflection of that problem. In this case, the need for something in the Universe to account for the apparent lack of visible matter gives rise to speculation about exotic particles that precisely fit the needed description: invisible matter that produces gravitational effects.

There may be a more reasonable and feasible explanation; one that does not require the existence of hopelessly exotic Dark Matter particles. I have written a full article describing this alternative (actually, several years ago), but would like to publish a series of introductory blogs (which I am calling the Dark Matter Series) to help explain a few simple concepts before publishing a link to it here.

And by the way, thanks for reading!

To view the next post in this series, click here.