Strange

So you are thinking of some sort of "invisibility cloak" for the Earth? Assuming that it is also massless (well, it is magic) then it would have no effect on the orbits.

A couple of things... A black hole is the event horizon not the singularity at the centre. I don't think many people think the singularity is physically real. But without a theory of quantum gravity it isn't known what might really happen. It may be that something prevents it become zero-sized and infinitely dense, but without some theory to say what that is, you are just making wild guesses.

Yes, the energy from the annihilation of matter and antimatter has the same gravitational effect. (That isn't the source of the CMB, though.) But yes, all the visible matter and energy only accounts for about 1/7 of the matter in the universe. Simulations show that dark matter is essential for forming the large scale structure of the universe and the formation of galaxies. (As far as I know, dark energy is not a significant factor in this.)

At 2,500 km/s it would take about 3 million years to reach the galactic centre. As the Earth is about 4 billion years old, how come we are still here?

What is wrong with the current explanation? About time you provided some evidence or calculations to support this claim. Do you realise how ludicrous that logic is? "As there is no evidence that the galaxies are not pushed around by invisible pink unicorns then we must assume that the universe is unicorn-driven"

But it isn't used ALONE. No one claims it is used ALONE. Scientists have always used imagination, observation, dreams, hypotheses, speculation, luck, bouncing ideas off colleagues, and many other techniques. (But the results of any of those will necessarily be tested using mathematics. Because they are not "safe mediums" without it.) That is why this thread is 19 pages of pointless strawman argument.

I think you need to answer all the obvious and devastating flaws in your "dark matter" hypothesis before moving on.

Indeed. I was just commenting on the "you can't have such equation" (you know, like people who say "irregardless isn't a word").

I think you need to grow up. If you are old enough to have a job, you shouldn't be behaving like a teenager. Why do you feel the need to compete with your boss? Surely the idea is to work together to get the job done. https://xkcd.com/385/

Then can you explain why the same force that you claim pushes galaxies away from each other does not cause the stars in galaxies to repel each other? Perhaps you could address the objections that have already been raised before people provide more evidence for you to ignore. How is that relevant? As you have provided no evidence to support this, no one is going to assume it is true.

But there it is... That's a statement, not an equation.

The value of x is undefined

Is that serious? So you are saying that the stars in a galaxy all orbit the black hole and have absolutely no effect on each other (whether from gravity or "ground potential")? Can you use you 469 MV to calculate the orbital velocities of stars and gas in the galaxy?

OK. But the questions was, why the electron and the proton? Why not other particles? And how do you relate the charge or mass of those to the orbits of the planets? Also, your argument in both the case of the electron/nucleus and a planet/sun is that there is some relationship (surface potential) between the central body and the orbiting body. Correct? How does this apply to a galaxy, where there is no central body to have a surface potential?

The other thing that doesn't make sense (from a purely logical point of view): you are taking the observed ("forward") speeds of planets, doing some manipulation to derive ("backward") speeds we don't see and then using these to explain the speeds we do see in galaxies. I think you justify this by saying that we see galaxies as they were in the past. Why would this make us see these "backward" speeds in galaxies? After all, in both cases, we are looking at all the planets at the same time (near enough) and we are looking at the whole of each galaxy at the same time (near enough). So where (when?) does this switch from seeing "forward" speeds to seeing "backward" speeds occur? For example, when we look at Jupiter or Saturn we are looking back in time, but their moons behave as expected, so we must be seeing "forward" speeds. And yet in our own galaxy, we see "backward" speeds. Given that both the calculation of "backward" speeds and saying when they are relevant seem rather ad-hoc, there doesn't seem to be much reason to take this hypothesis seriously. OTOH, you might better off saying that we see "backward" speeds above a certain scale or mass (so it is more of a MOND-like approach - although that is totally ad-hoc as well).

Why electron (a fundamental particle) and proton (a composite particle)? What about the relationships between other fundamental particle masses? And other composite particle masses?

If you don't ignore the second term then, because its contribution is about 1%, the cooling time will be about 1% shorter.

Quite. But science only deals with things for which we have evidence. So although that question might be interesting to philosophers, it is pretty much irrelevant to science.

Very nearly the same, yes. For the reasons you have clearly explained in your post. Or did you really type all that and not understand it?

You could take it as an opportunity to learn some real science.

That isn't faith. It is pragmatism. Yes, maybe we could wake up tomorrow with two suns, a yellow sky, gravity pushing, cats barking and pigs flying. It hasn't happened yet, so there isn't much point basing plans, decisions and the scientific method on the chance it will. If it ever does, we will have to adapt, and adapt our science, to the new conditions.

Are you aware of an aether model that is supported by evidence?

That is not what I said (or not what I intended to say, anyway).

Sorry, it was intended as friendly joke, not an attack. I forgot the " :-)" (And it probably isn't funny, in hindsight. )

Yes, massless particles such as photons would move at "their" c. Massive particles could move at any speed up to that.