Strange

Nearly 0.05% difference. Wow.

You have stated this. But it is wrong. No. As I say, the best attempts can reduce the amount needed, not eliminate it. But there is no othjer evidence for the modifed gravity theories (but there is other evidence for dark matter). It is very sweet that you think so. Your mum must be very proud. Now, if you could actually do the calculations (instead of guessing) then you might impress others as well. As current theories are the current theories for a very good reason (they work and fit the evidence) I won't be doing that. You cannot compete with current theories because you ideas are unsupported and contradicted by the evidence.

Then you need to be clearer in what you say. I mean we, the human race. (I wasn't. Although I did work on a project to measure the CMB many ears ago.) How did you predict that? What models of nucleosynthesis did you use? Have you worked out why your result is different from the standard result (and observation)? Have you updated the way you made your rpediction based on those facts?

For large enough values of "more or less" maybe. The density of dark matter near the center of the galaxy is much greater than around the solar system. That is average amount of dark matter compared to matter. In the solar system the density of normal matter is much, much higher than average (almost entirely due to the Sun). So, even if we assume that dark matter is evenly distributed, there will be a much, much higher ratio of matter to dark matter in the solar system. I started working this out, but found someone has already done it. The total mass of dark matter in the solar system is about 1/1000000000000000000th of the mass of the sun. http://cdms.berkeley.edu/Education/DMpages/FAQ/question36.html Current theory doesn't contradict Newton's law. But note that people have tried to explain dark matter by using modifed theories of gravity (e.g. MOND) but they just don't fit the data. Most notably, if you make the theory work for galaxies it doesn't work for galaxy clusters (and vice versa). The best you can achieve by modified the way gravity works is to reduce the amount of dark matter needed. Also, if dark matter wasn't responsible for the orbital speeds in galaxies, then you would need a new explanation for all the other evidence for dark matter.

I don't understand what that means. "Velocity passes"? Light particles do not produce elemments. And what does "BB velocities" mean? We can predict what elements were created in the big bang: mainly hydrogen and a small amount of helium. This is what we observe. Not hostile. Just pointing out that your assumptions have no basis in reality and many of your sentence are meaningless jumbles of inappropriate terminology.

Or it leads to hatred, conflict and war.

People who have actually done the maths, rather than guessing, would disagree. "16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html It is anywhere and everywhere. The distribution has been mapped fairly thoroughly. Nope. The percentage of salt varies all over the place. (A bit like dark matter.) It is. If you were capable of doing the maths, you would know this wasn't true (partly because there isn't enough dark matter in the solar system compared to the mass of the Sun). Theory is the best possible explanation science can give. Proof doesn't exist in science. OK? And that is why they are good arguments. You ignore evidence. And science. And refuse to do any real calculations. Stop wasting everyone's time.

Because if it had charge then it would interact electromagnetically. It doesn't (hence the name "dark"). And colourless green sheep dream furiously.

No. Length contraction is a purely relativistic, coordinate effect. It has nothing to do with compression. It belongs in speculations because your posts have no basis in reality. They seem to be random strings of words with no understanding of their meaning. And the answer is no. We interact with time dilated (i.e. moving) particles all the time. Mass.

How can light be an observer? That is meaningless. Which it obviously isn't. If the reactions were random, then they would not behave like "chemical automatons". However, as chemistry is deterministic, and living systems do a lot to maintain equilibria, etc. it could be argued that living organisms are "chemical automatons". This appears to be the standard view of life as a series of chemical reactions. As such, I still have no idea what you are claiming that is different from mainstream science. Do you think life is considered to be more than just chemistry?

It is limited to only gravitational effects. It has no charge. By definition.

So this sounds like a roughly accurate description of general relativity. This is already taken into account (if necessary) when considering the speeds of objects in different frames of refrerence. It is used, for example, to correct for the effects of gravity and speed of satellites in GPS receivers. The (local) limit of the speed of light comes from this same theory, so it isn't clear what you are saying that is different.

"778331518127.8 meters"? Really? I mean, really??

We regularly measure the electromagnetic effects of particles which are travelling at near light speed. Also, the evidence suggests that dark matter is not moving at relativistic velocities. Escape velocity is a function of mass and distance, so this statement doesn't make much sense.

A link would be useful. But cosmic rays have nothing to do with dark matter. (But they are reasonably isotropic, as far as I know.) Dark matter cannot exist in chemical compositions as it does not interact electromagnetically. People have searched for the decay of micro black holes (from their Hawking radiation) and found no sign of them.

Has anyone pointed you at this, yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_coordinates_%28astronomy%29

That is speed, not time. What is a "time barrier"? c is the speed of light; which is the fastest possible speed. Sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying. You appear to be mixing speed and time as if they were the same thing.

The density of dark matter (especially this far from the centre of the galaxy) is incredibly low and would have no effect. It isn't charged because, as far as we can tell it doesn't interact electromagnetically. I don't know what "non-directional" means. It is not homogeneously distributed, if that is what you are thinking (it is denser towards the centre of the galaxy).

If you are interested in the centrifugal force due to rotation around the barycentre, then this might help: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/restles3.html This one goes into much more detail of the calculations: https://squishtheory.wordpress.com/the-tides/ Depends how you define "curvature", I suppose. I was thinking in terms of the radius of curvature. I suppose you are thinking in terms of "how bent it is" (or something) which seems harder to define formally. But the point is, I was just showing how it all ties together in a consistent way.

The centripetal force IS the the gravitational force, that is the point I was making. Don't take my word for it: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/orbv.html Exactly.

And because the acceleration of the Sun is far smaller than the acceleration of the Earth, the curvature of its path is much smaller so it moves in a small circular path. The Earth, on the other hand, moves in a larger circle. The common centre of these two circles is called the barycentre. (Actually, strictly speaking they are ellipses rather than circles. But the principle is the same.) The acceleration in each case is inversely proportional to the mass, which is why the distance from the barycentre is inversely proportional to the mass.

Ignoring the practicalities ... nothing would happen. The amount of mass-energy within the radius of the containment would not change. Therefore no black hole. You would either have to increase the amount of mass-energy so that the radius of the containment was less than the Schwarzschild radius, or somehow squeeze all the material into a size smaller than its Schwarzschild radius. This has nothing to do with free fall or dark matter. Many of your questions seem to be full of misconceptions. For example: Do you mean electric charge? Where is that coming from? What does "transfer to charge to mass" mean?

The 'r' in both equations is the distance between the objects. (Maybe I should have used 'd'.) As you have been told at least once, the distance to the barycentre is proportional to the masses of the objects. It is not always the radius of the planet: it is the distance between the two objects. For an object on the surface, then it is the radius of the planet. Not otherwise.

No. No. And no.

I can't help thinking it should be called "asymptotic lack-of-freedom."