Strange

I don’t understand how this works mathematically. Nor practically, either. For example, for two electrons to collide they must meet at the same point in space and time. Otherwise it is like us arranging to meet at a bar, but you are there on Thursday and I am there on Saturday. We won’t meet. Similarly, if the two particles are not at the same space and time they won’t meet.

Excellent question. It implies that the particles would have very low mass, like neutrinos. That in turn, the implies that they would be moving at nearly the speed of light (like neutrinos). But neutrinos have been ruled out because the distribution of dark matter tells us that it is “cold” - ie not moving at relativistic speeds. And that’s my point, your gas/particles are required to have various properties that don’t match those of dark matter. So, even if some sort of gas could produce the effects you claim (which I don’t believe is possible) that gas is not the cosmologists’ dark matter.

Nope. They can’t do that. Bouncing only happens if they interact via something like the electromagnetic force.

The reason is that DM only interacts gravitationally. "Normal" matter also interacts via electromagnetic forces (the particles bump into each other). This allows it to cool down and form small, dense clumps like stars and planets. Dark matter requires much longer to form loose, large scale structures. We know this because the initial hypothesis for dark matter is that it only interacts gravitationally (hence "dark"). And it turns out in that case, you naturally get the density distribution required to reproduce the rotation curves we see. If it behaved like a [baryonic] gas, then ti would collapse (like the other material in the galaxy) to form structures paralleling (or oven overlaying) the normal matter structures in the galaxy. There is other evidence supportive of this, for example that simulations of the formation of the large scale structure of the universe only work when dark matter (that only interacts gravitationally) mis added to the mix in the observed proportion. I really do want to get back to some of the details in the OP and the later posts but I am on holiday and so only have very little time!

They have specific energy levels, not places. The probability density function describes the probability of finding an electron, with a given energy

Why would it enhance the field? As it says, it would block the magnetic field. Almost the opposite of enhancing it. Bu the way, that website is not in general a reliable source of information. Although, in this case they have just copied a press release. original article here, for anyone interested: https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.1647

There is just about the same level of evidence for photons as there is for GR. No. They need to be testable to be scientific. (Although the definition of “scientific” is broader than that.) Because if we add matter (in the distribution it would naturally have, given its properties) then observations match the theory. If you had been around when the gravitational effect of Neptune had been seen (but Neptune had not) would you jump to the conclusion that our theory of gravity is wrong? Or, maybe, more realistically that there is a planet we haven’t seen yet. Obvioudly we need to consider all possibilities, but to assume the obvious and simplest answer must be the wrong one is just perverse. That is no more “proved” than the existence of photons or electrons. It is part of a good model. That doesn’t make it “true”. The authors of the theory claim that. They also claim some evidence supports it. Others say there is evidence that contradicts it. So I wouldn’t assume too much yet.

There is a handy calculator here: http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/ you can enter size, mass or any other parameter, and it calculates all the rest b

It doesn’t matter how often you repeat that it still isn’t true.

The confusion is caused because there is the word “matter” in the name “dark matter”. Dark matter might not be a form of matter at all. It might be a sign that we don’t fully understand gravity. So, until we know what causes the effects we see, the name “dark matter” is just a placeholder. (Of course, most physicists think it is some form of matter because the other theories don’t explain all of the evidence so well.) If you want to give dark matter properties that allow it to reproduce GR (a challenge) AND still behave like dark matter, then you have your work cut out. For this to be taken seriously you will need a detailed model that is able to make accurate, quantitative predictions that match observations. More later ...

Cool! I haven’t seen that before

I will get to your other points later but you may have missed my point here. You are using something you call dark matter to explain everything currently described by GR. But physicist use the term dark matter as a placeholder for the explanation of things that cannot be explained by GR. So even if your idea were correct, it would not explain the things that DM was supposed to explain. More later ...

Fair comment. There is a lot there that needs answering. I will wait till I have more time and a proper keyboard!

You seem to be ignoring what we know about the distribution, quantity and properties of dark matter in favour of your own guesses. What evidence do you have that there is more dark matter around massive objects? You say that tiny (unevidenced) differences between dark matter pressure around the Earth cause measurable effects and yet the large increase in density towards the centre of the galaxy has no significant effect. Also if your concept of dark matter were to reproduce all the effects of GR then we would need something else (“dark matter 2.0”) to explain the effects currently ascribed to dark matter. This a classic example of the fallacy of begging the question. This would also seem to have the same sort of problems as push gravity of requiring physically impossible properties.

It have no idea. But for example in 4 you claim that time dilation is due to increasing density of DM at the centre of the Earth. However there is very little DM around the Earth and no evidence it’s density increases locally. However, the density increases dramatically towards the centre of the galaxy but we don’t see any significant increase in time dilation. Your assumption that there is more dark matter around massive objects to cause the effects we ascribe to gravity does not match any model of dark matter that I am aware of.

Without a reference for that specific picture it is hard to say. But what we see is the atomic force microscope (?) interacting with the electron orbitals. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital (SJ’s comment suggest we are seeing the 2s orbital)

I have reported your post so the mods will see it (and can decide what to do)

It really bugs me when people say “not logical” to mean “it didn’t make sense”. This has nothing to do with logic. Anyway, this idea sounds a bit like Lorentz ether theory, which is identical to relativity but with the addition of “ether” (your dark matter) to explain the effects mechanically. One immediate question, wouldn’t you expect various effects to vary depending on the local density of dark matter? Can you provide some (quantitative) confirmation of that? You have various qualitative predictions; can you put numbers on any of these? Also, several seem to be based on measuring our movement through dark matter. Have you considered all the experiments that have failed to detect our motion through the ether and the implications for your idea?

So we are not held down by the atmosphere? Make your mind up. We don’t need to go there to know what the gravity is. Also, many organisations other than NASA have been to the moon. Did you not actually read the post you are responding to? It explains how the gravity of planets is known. Also, you have ignored all the important questions from Janus. If you don’t answer them in the next couple of posts I will request the mods close this thread as being free of science. If there is no atmosphere then there cannot be a draft (draught).

And, to ask for the fourth time, how is that possible when there is no atmosphere? What does NASA have to do with it? Remember, you must do this twice: once with your machine not spinning and one with it spinning.

There is no atmosphere on the moon but there is still gravity. You still haven't explained how there is gravity on the moon with no air to hold things down.

Doh. That’s a good point. But, also, science can reproduce observations and we can reproduce subsets of the conditions. So, no, we can’t reproduce the Big Bang or abiogenesis, but we can reproduce and test the components that make up our model individually. So we have a good understanding of what (probably) happened in the early universe based on the physics we can reproduce. That is why our theory only goes back so far (and says nothing at all about a “creation” event). Because we are not able to reproduce, and therefore model, the conditions earlier than that. Of course, we can never disprove that god created the Universe 13.8 billion years ago in such a way that it precisely matches our theories. (Or even 15 minutes ago. ) And that is why god is outside the scope of science.

Strictly speaking, nothing is scientifically proven. The evidence is based on observation and measurement. The theory/model is based on mathematics. The evidence is consistent with the theory. That us true of gravity, magnetism, quantum theory, atoms, chemistry, physics, cosmology, ... basically all Of science. It will also be true of Verlinde’s theory if there is ever any evidence for it That is how science works. Not by “proving” things. And certainly not by proving things are real or exist. And there is zero evidence that that theory can explain dark matter. There have been many attempts to explain dark matter in terms of modified gravity (among other things). So far, none of them match all the evidence (unlike dark matter as matter).

Exactly. Otherwise we get into ridiculous arguments like “well if you can’t reproduce the Big Bang [or abiogenesis] I’m a lab then it isn’t science.” which we occasionally get from anti-science types.

This is another example of a category error. We have highly detailed and accurate models based on facts, mathematics and models (ie chemistry and physics) on the one hand. On the other we have the vague, unquantifiable and untestable “god-did-it”. The scientific approach to abiogenesis can come up with various possible explanations and then test them to see which work and which don’t. All he can do is wave his hands and repeat “god did it” louder and louder. Nothing can disprove it so it has zero explanatory power. On that, the scientific method works. In other words, it produces useful results. We have technology based on science (eg your computer). There is no equivalent technology based on theology or philosophy. For all the benefits it may provide to the faithful, it isn’t a productive methodology. P.S. you are wasting your time: https://xkcd.com/386/