kba

It just changed its name ). Almost everyday I receive an anonce of published paper about some "unification" theory from my only e-mail subscription.

It would have to explain simpliest action of Matter. If it could define simpliest interactions, it could construct the Universe. Like you build the house using standart bricks.

Is it means that I can suggest my idea for DM here?

Not the same way. According to hypothesis of DM, it is concentrated near to galaxy, holds stars inside the galaxy. But I think that stars aren't holded there. They moving around the center of galaxy and out, their velocity slowly increasing due to gravity of far galaxies. Calculation is simple, it is based on known mass and size of Universe. But, to get expecting result, we have to take in account dynamical nature of gravity.

IMHO, MOND is speculative theory. Any theory should define law(equation, formula) of based on some model which explains why exactly such law physical value dependency was used. Does MOND do it? I'm not sure. As I understand the philosophy of nature, we have to change the main paradigm of free(aka inertial) motion to understand DM phenomenon. Any motion at any time isn't free (i.e. non enforced). Only forces support the motion. The motion by inertia is illusion that such motion is free (non enforced). Only the body, keeping in rest, forces do not act to. As I have found, the gravity is a force which dynamically increasing during the motion. And such force makes any body or particle to accelerate its moving, if they are do not undergo for action of other forces. Thus, all bodies in the Universe have been accelerated, including stars. That's why their velocities do not decrease while they moving around the galaxy centre. The evolution of galaxy can be represented as stars moving around its center and slowly retires from it due to acceleration of [pseudo free] inertial motion. Such motion, actually, is provided by gravity of othe galaxies in the Universe. Rough calculation defines acceleration of any [free] motion equal to approximatelly 1E-9 m/s². DM doesn't hold the stars, as blocked inside the galaxy, on the stable orbit. That's why we observe various types of galaxies. Highly likely, galaxy evolution goes through various stages from quasars to scattered galaxies.

How about such newest evidence (not single) - "Runaway 'failed star' races through the cosmos at 1.2 million mph"? Read about it here - https://www.livescience.com/space/astronomy/runaway-failed-star-races-through-the-cosmos-at-1-2-million-mph Almost all astrophysical news of last 2-3 years, breaking the view to Universe providind by Standard Model and Standard Cosmology, are evidences for Dynamic Gravity theory. Now, what scienists going to do? Just will be waiting for complete invalidation of Standard Physics for Cosmology?

Other one phenomenon (and evidence) which can be explained by means of Dynamic Gravity theory and which proves it - is an "Antimatter detected on International Space Station could reveal new physics". Read about it here https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/particle-physics/antimatter-detected-on-international-space-station-could-reveal-new-physics or here https://www.labrujulaverde.com/en/2024/07/antimatter-detected-on-the-international-space-station-reveals-unknown-physics/ Standard Model of particles cannot explain how this antimatter was synthesed (in the explosion like cosmic ray generators) to be accelerated, but Dynamic Gravity can explain - it was created in the ordinary mechanism, but speed up by gravi-inertial acceleration. ...to be continued for new evidences.

And again. The next evidence for the Dynamic Gravity is here https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/New_Study_Reinforces_Evidence_for_Modified_Gravity_in_Wide_Binary_Star_Systems_999.html also here https://medium.com/@gabriel.macedo.brother/new-theory-for-gravity-46284969714c An acceleration of the inertial movement is more viewable on the far distances!

https://www.livescience.com/space/unexpected-cosmic-clumping-could-disprove-our-best-understanding-of-the-universe also https://physics.aps.org/articles/v16/193 This is one more reason to consider conception of Dynamical Gravity.

T.Rex was able to have such big head because he hadn't normal-sized "hands", so his body was perfectly balanced for walking on the land.

According to what?

Like being at the center of mass in the geocentric and heliocentric model of the Universe.

I wrote "it sounds like", not "=". It's how do you like. The name of article is "Speed of the Milky Way in Space". May be "velocity of the milky way" isn't equal to "Speed of the Milky Way" for you and for article's authors? I don't know. Or/and "Space" isn't equal to "the universal level" by Bufofrog’s? May be ask him?

It sounds like a heliocentric or early christian geocentric model of Universe 🙂 Just read this

Yes, of course. Evenly distributed mass is better for uniform acceleration. It connected with dynamical nature of gravitational force. Do you know about "retarded potentials"? If no, then I have to provide this link for you. How about an extra velocity of stars on numerous galaxies which scientists connect with mistiqal Dark matter? Just look at name of topic you comment ) And, can scientists directly register a = 0.00000000868 m/sec² for our Galaxy or its stars?