Strange

What does rotation have to do with it? Yes, ordinary matter is able to collapse because it self-interacts. Dark matter doesn't.

Because it would require the particles to cool (slow) down. They can only do this if they interact (as in the way clouds of gas and dust collapse to form stars and planets). If they do not interact then they will continue on their orbits around the galaxy and not form locally dense areas. It doesn't really matter if you understand it or not. That is what the physics shows. Although you probably should learn more about the properties and behaviour of dark matter before tying to come up with your own theory.

To convince others that it makes sense you need to show your mathematical model and how well the predictions of that model match observational evidence. You could start with the details of the CMB: how does that arise in your model? What spectrum does your model predict? How well does that match measurements? Then we can move on the relative proportions of hydrogen and helium: what ratio of the primordial elements does your model predict? How well does that match what we observe? These are (or can be) compatible with the Big Bang model. There are many lines of evidence that lead to that conclusion. The simplest is the analysis of the red-shift data which can simply be traced back to calculate the age. Because we know how much denser (and therefore hotter) the universe was before then (using physics). And we know that means that there was a plasma that did not allow the propagation of light. What does your model say? You could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

You can make this claim, but you need to demonstrate it is true with appropriate mathematics (which probably means a simulation). If DM particle interacted (with each other) enough to cool and form dense areas around all objects then they would not form the large haloes around galaxies. This is not just a guess or an assumption; it is shown by simulating the behaviour of non-interacting dark matter compared with normal matter. You can't have it both ways: either dark matter does not interact and it forms galactic haloes or it does interact and doesn't form them.

I think it is entirely due to your incompetence. Why are short lines easier to correct? That is an idiotic excuse. But you admit you are deliberately writing in an annoying and hard to read manner just yo make your life a little bits easier. That is a pretty offensive level of arrogance.

Oh good grief. You are claiming that some sort of fluid (that has very specific properties in the way it interacts) can be described by the mathematics of GR. Why should anyone just accept this claim? Why should the geometry of 4D manifolds math the behaviour of subatomic particles? I'm sorry, but I have seen so many "explanations" (springs, force fields, new types of particles, superfluids, supersolids, aether, ...) all claiming that they can be described by the mathematics of GR. It makes no sense, why should fluid flow (or any other model) be described by the geometry of pseudo-Riemannian manifolds? There is absolutely no reason to accept this claim. You need a mathematical proof that your model is equivalent to GR. Otherwise anyone can make up any old nonsense ("it is caused by unicorn poo") and say "but the mathematics are the same as GR". And if the mathematics of your model are the same as GR, then your model will produce the same results as GR. Therefore you will not be able to distinguish it from GR. And therefore it will be rejected by the use of Occam's razor.

So you don't know what you retaking about and yet you still make these claims? You can' even explain why you believe that vectors can only represent two dimensions So you think you need to use new maths to get new results (there is no reason that should be true) but then you want to go back to the old maths. That is not logical (in the correct meaning of the word). Reported.

I assume you are using the word “logical” to mean “it makes sense to me (because I thought of it)” rather than the correct meaning. There isn’t really “incontrovertible proof” of anything in science. Perhaps the closest in this case is the Cosmic Microwave Background. That was what eliminated all other theories at the time. Si, how does your model explain the CMB? Note that to compete with the existing theory, you need to provide a precise, mathematical prediction of both the spectrum and temperature of the CMB, not just some vague verbal description. Why would there be?

Then why are you discussing it on the Internet!? If you are not prepared to justify your assinine claims, stop making them.

That doesn’t really answer the question. Why do you believe that “Vector algebra stipulates that we analyze rotary motion by projecting it on flat surfaces” ?

Why do you think that? Do you believe that vectors can only represent two dimensions?

One of the requirements of the mathematics used to model the curvature of spacetime is that it is continuous. Therefore discontinuities, such as cracks, are not supported.

How can there be stars older than the Big Bang ? That makes no sense.

To everyone else, it makes it look like the text is written by a four year old. P.s. your pathetic attempts to justify your immature writing style is much more interesting than your delusional ideas about physics.

Reported to suggest that. Although, given the clear ignorance of this poster it might go straight to Trash

OK. Let’s see the mathematical details of your model. Can you show that it makes the same predictions for time dilation and length contraction?

And an aether that moves with the Earth is ruled out by observation. Sigh. And no one said it didn’t. Oh good grief. You can’t just make stuff up. An accelerometer in free fall would show zero. You are demonstrating impressive new levels of ignorance. Every object has a gravitational field, including you and every object in the room. Which is odd as your computer would not work without it. But I’m not surprised you don’t know that.

If it were accelerating you would experience a force (like when you are pushed back in the seat of a car). We are in free fall along with the Earth. You should learn some schoolboy physics before making more of a fool of yourself.

I had the impression you were old enough to remember typewriters. Possibly even their invention. But apparently not. How about not doing either. Why the bizarre need to break your text into short unreadable lines? Just stop it.

Look at the link provided by swansont. That would because it isn’t accelerating and decelerating. It is in free fall.

Which would be equivalent to “aether drag” or any equivalent model where the Earth is stationary wrt the aether. (Which, as noted, is ruled out.) (And of course one can measure the speed of wind from a balloon, so your comment doesn’t even make sense as an analogy.)

That is what the CR key is for. Adding blank lines (the clue is in the name). If you don't want so many blank lines, then don't press the CR key so often. And here is another, related, tip: How about NOT pressing CR in the middle of a line as well ! That might make your posts look slightly less idiotic, even if it doesn't improve the content.

This was one of the early possibilities. That is why neutrons were considered a candidate. The trouble is that if particles have very little mass then giving them even tiny amounts of energy means they move at near light speed. If these particles were somehow created with nearly zero kinetic energy then they would be moving slowly. But as soon as they interact (as yours do) they would be accelerated to near light speed. So they can’t be dark matter. I have seen this so often, for many different ideas: “my model is completely different but uses the same mathematics as GR.” I’m afraid that just doesn’t wash. You need to prove (mathematically) that interactions with a gas can be described in terms of the geometry of a 4D pseudo-Riemannian manifold.

I think you underestimate how much is known. If there were some sort of repulsive force like this then the distribution of dark matter would be different from particles that only interact via gravity. Run a simulation and see... Bouncing (or bumping) only happens if there is some sort of interaction like the electromagnetic force. They aren't. They pass through matter as if it weren't there. They could pass through light years of lead without noticing. (And they don't interact with each other, either.) The same has to be true of dark matter (for the reason given above). The only reason we can detect a handful of neutrinos from the sun, for example, is because there are billions and billions passing every second. And the failed attempts to detect dark matter particles suggest they interact even less. p.s. There was another thread recently claiming that "displaced dark matter is curved spacetime". The thread is now in Trash and the poster banned because he has posted the same thing many, many times but is never able to get any further than just repeating that claim more and more emotionally. So thanks for the constructive discussion on this idea. As you can tell, I think it is wrong for all sorts of reasons. Some of those are quite hard to explain, so I look forward to trying when I have more time ... (Sorry to keep saying that!)

That is the current understanding. There is currently no evidence of anything “below” this. There are some purely theoretical ideas where quantum effects emerge from some lower level model. But that’s all they are: ideas.