Strange

It would be pretty straightforward. Could be a good school or undergrad project.

It "matches" in the sense that it correlates with; not in the sense that it can be explained by. As the sentence you quote says: "even if the disk is mostly filled with dark matter" What this seems to suggest is there is a very strong relationship between the amount and distribution of "normal" matter and the amount of dark matter. This may not be too surprising as the presence of dark matter is essential to galaxy formation. I don't know if this relationship has been confirmed by any of the simulations of structure formation (which require dark matter to reproduce the structures we see).

It seems to me that there are two ways this could be interpreted in physics. It could mean that one could define a standard time that is used throughout the universe such that when it is 5 o'clock in Guildford, it will also be 5 o'clock in Xrx!z in the Android galaxy (and everywhere else). We know this is not possible in the real (relativistic) universe. The other is that every observer would agree about when events happened. So if Alice in New York thinks that A happened at the same time as B then Bob in the ISS would agree. We know this is not how the universe works either. The fact that neither of these apply comes down to the same reason: the nature of space-time as described by relativity.

Relativity says nothing of the sort. Most of that makes no sense. You seem to be basing your argument on almost total ignorance of relativity. I don’t even know what that means. Does it mean anything? Nonsense. The space time model (ie relativity) is completely different from the old concept of space and separate absolute time. Nonsense. This is just ignorant nonsense that you are inventing. There is no truth in science. Your problem is that you just repeat the same empty baseless claims with no evidence. Either show us your alternative model or shut up.

Yes. Its easy. We just fly to a black hole and drop in a scientist and observe what happens.

Interesting. I haven't seen this before. It still has the problem of all the other evidence for dark matter though ... OK. Just found a better article about that research. It doesn't mean there is no dark matter (as I understood from the first article) but that the amount of dark matter is strongly correlated with the distribution of the visible matter. (I think I have seen this result before). A better overview here: https://physics.aps.org/articles/v9/130

Thanks you. That is an image I had in my mind but wasn't sure how to put it into words....

I might feel the need to comment about the deranged ramblings of an artist being posted in support of a personal theory...

Any evidence that time is quantised? Or that it can be represented as a particle or a wave function?

This is partly true. Protons and neutrons are held together by the strong nuclear force. This also attracts protons to protons, and neutrons to other neutrons. Because of the strong electrostatic repulsion between protons, you need a certain proportion of neutrons for the atom to be stable. Actually, the strong force is what holds the quarks together inside protons and neutrons. It is the residual string force that "leaks" out of the protons and neutrons that holds them together. The strong nuclear force is very short range so any such effect is pretty much zero. This seems to be a very common idea, for some reason. There are countless reasons why it can't be true. For example, atoms are electrically neutral. We can block the electrostatic force, but we can't block magnetism. It goes on and on ...

A "shell" is not homogeneous! But it is a good approximation in many other cases.

No, Newton's Shell Theorem shows that the only the gravitational mass within the orbit s relevant. The same is basically true, I think, for the disk of the galaxy for orbits in the disk. Calculating the orbital speeds above and below the disk (e.g. for the gas and dust that provides some of the evidence for dark matter) is somewhat more complex.

I'm not sure. You might want to ask at http://forum.cosmoquest.org - it is populated by professional and amateur astronomers, astrophysicists, etc. But they have very strict rules so be careful how you ask the question so you don't appear to be promoting a non-mainstream theory. Good luck.

I haven't checked your maths, but you are correct in principle. The trouble is that the observed distribution of stars doesn't match that required for the rotation curves. This also doesn't address the other evidence for dark matter.

Does that mean you are not going to provide any evidence for your "theory"? So should we ask for the thread to be closed, then?

One dimension of "now" doesn't mean there is a single "now" any more than the spatial dimensions mean there is a single "here". I am not saying that because it is incoherent gibberish. Space-time IS the model of relativity. Reported for trolling.

Very impressive. (But nothing beyond finely tuned, mechanical human skills!) And, just to reference another thread ... We materialista and atheists are not like Spock from Star Trek; we don't look at something like that (or Olympic champions or whatever) and just dispassionately say, "yes, well done meat robot". No, we go: "F***! Get out of here! No way he can ... @%$&! He did it. That is so freakin awesome!!" (Well, I did, anyway!) And now there is a little bit of me going ... "I wonder how many attempts he had before he succeeded ... is it really genuine .. who are these people ..." But actually, I'm not that cynical !

Fields are not part of relativity so there doesn't need to be anything or any activity at an "event". So, for example, if we consider the Schwarzschild solution to the Einstein Field Equations, then all the events outside the spherical mass are "empty" (a true Schwarzschild black hole only exists in an otherwise empty universe; the use of the solution for real black holes is just a useful approximation). This appears to be from this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime This does not support your claims at all. In fact, it flat out contradicts your claims. The opening sentence under Definitions says: In other words, it is not relativity, nor unified spacetime, that treats time as something that is the same everywhere. It is pre-relativity theories that did not include space-time. It then goes on to say: In other words, in the model of space-time, time is dependent on the observer who measures it. So there is no "universal now". No need to apologise, you can just admit you were wrong and we will move on.

Oh no! That means there is one in my kitchen drawer!

Yes. (I think. ) Events are just the name for the "points" in the 4D coordinates system corresponding to the FoR; I guess they are called "events" because they include time and to distinguish them from (purely spatial) "points".

*sproink* And there goes another irony meter.

Not so much centred on different events but, if they are in relative motion, then they will "slice" space-time in different ways. So what one person sees as a distance along a spatial dimension another can see as (partly) a movement along a time dimension (and slightly less movement along the spatial dimension). This is basically because the Lorentz transform between frames of reference is a rotation between the spatial and the time dimension.

Where does it say that? Stop making stuff up or provide some evidence. We choose science. You choose to make stuff up. Where do we go from here?

A sudden reduction in pressure will do this. For example, if your source of air is compressed. Or it could be evaporation of the petrol. But that would mean you were losing fuel, I think. Plausible. But potentially dangerous if it gets too hot!

Um. Yes. For example: Do you need more? And those are just the explicit examples, the entire tone of your posts are aggressive and insulting. Kettle. Black. There is no problem with that. We all fill in the gaps in our knowledge with our preferences and beliefs. I am, by inclination, a materialist and a naive realist (in other words, the world we see around us is pretty much the same as "reality"). But I know those are logically indefensible. They are, if you insist, matters of belief. But I would change them instantly, if there were evidence to the contrary. I am fairly sure, from what I have seen of Eise's posts, that that is not the case. Also, it is extremely insulting to claim that other people must be morally deficient because they don't share your beliefs. That is normally what we hear from the more dogmatic and fundamentalist religious types. One can be deeply religious and a selfish psychopath. One can be a materialist atheist and still be the kindest and most generous should on Earth. The two things are totally unrelated. To be honest, you won't find people more open minded than scientists. It is their job and training to be open minded. Unless, by "open minded" you mean "willing to believe any old shit that sounds nice even though there is no evidence." You can report your post and request this. Based past experience, they won't oblige. But I'm sorry that you are not willing to engage in open-minded discussion with people who have (a variety of) differing opinions from your own. I suspect you have lost an opportunity to learn more about science, the world and other people. Instead you have chosen to ignore (or misrepresent) what has been said in order to bolster your own prejudices. That is very sad.