[MaeveChondrally (OP)]

E=m*c^2 and E=hf , Einsteins formula nad Planks formula for the energy of a photon give m=hf/c^2 so photons have an equivalent mass and it is quantum mechanical duality , light is both mass and energy.  E=m*c^2 so mass is equivalent to energy and it is usually a different phase.  light is pure energy and has an equivalent mass.  if suns shine for 10 billion years that is a heck of a lot of mass out in space if you consider all the galaxies and all the photons emitted over all time in the past..  This could account for all the extra mass that does have gravity.  light does have momentum and if you look at the photoelectric effect photons being absorbed by a solar panel exchange momentum and there is a measurable force and displacement that can be measured on the panel.  light has equivalent mass and has self gravity.  it is very small for most photons but not for the amount  of photons over 10 billion years for an entire galaxy.  i'm sure it is quite a considerable amount of mass and gravity.  similarly a black hole does attract and absorb light or consume it and light if it had no gravity it would not be attracted to black holes this implies it has mass or the equivalent of it.  light probably attracts mass and is attracted to it and it would be a modification of general relativity and it would be quantum gravity.  i see the way forward as one of stopping nonsensical dark matter and dark energy research and start mapping the light spectrum and location in spacetime of energy and mass so that they can predict orbits of galaxies and that of their suns.  dark matter is light and dark energy is light.  most of it cannot be seen because it is not in the visible spectrum.  RADIO waves, microwaves, infra red, ultraviolet, T rays, x rays, gamma rays and cosmic rays.  the frequency of some of them is very high and it is quite a lot of mass out there.   i believe it has been a misunderstanding before.  it can actually be seen with special detectors on satellites with telescopes.  the chandra satellite has a telescope and xray cameral on it.  Its also Young's double slit experiment where if you have one slit and fire photons at it separately it creates a bullet pattern on a film on the other side of the slit.  if you have two slits and fire single photons at it then you get an interference pattern on the film with magnitudes commensurate with a probability distribution.  this is quantum mechanical duality where light is both a particle and a wave. And you have two eyes to see with that create a probability distribution imagnitude interference pattern in your visual cortex which creates depth vision and a mapping of spacetime into your cognition with memory.
Occams razor says that the simplest hypothesis that explains the observed phenomena is probably true.
Try a different approach to calculation.  calculate the amount of photons emitted from a star in a second from its spectrum and calculate m=hf/c^2  for each frequency in the spectrum and then multiply up to 10 billion years or the average age of suns and then multiply by 100 billion suns for a galaxy like the milky way.  suns acrete matter and hydrogen over millenia.  see how much mass that becomes for a single galaxy and then see if it adds up to the dark matter mass!
Apparently light is actually held back from getting here by self gravity and the other mass out there and that explains why the night sky is dark and explains olbers paradox.

I'm trying to find out from google scholar where the numbers 27% and 5% of the universes mass for dark matter and normal periodic table matter and light come from respectively.  I am finding it difficult to find out where those numbers are proved.  does anybody have a reference.  i found one good survey paper by Jean Einasto from 2013 in the journal of physics called darjk matter.  but proof of those numbers and the observations that made them possible and the analysis of the evidence seems to be missing from the field!
The gravitational lensing paper data has to be reanalyzed in the light of quantum gravity and m=h/(lambda*c) for the mass of the photon.  This will change the gravitational lensing result by quite a  bit and the estimates of dark matter in the galaxies.  Remember back in 1933 the Zwicky Mount Wilson data was only for visible light and black holes could not be seen back than.

Astronaut/Commander Chris Hadfield's experiment on detecting dark matter failed on the international space station on his last mission!
The voyager space probe is far out in space and is probably a little off trajectory.  The retro rocket fuel necessary to correct the trajectrory is a bit too expensive to use.  perhaps if dark matter existed,  the voyager would be further off trajectory than it is.... this should be checked.

The Laser Interferometry Gravitational Observatory (LIGO ) gravitational lensing papers should be revisited in light of quantum gravity.
2 new uncertainty principles arrive due to f= 2pic^2m/h
they are for the photon travellling in time t,    delta t * delta m >= h^2/4/pi^2/c^2     and delta t * delta E >= h^2/4/pi^2

and these both come from the signal processing uncertainty principle   delta t * delta f >= h/2/pi
many thanks to Ed Jernigan and Mike Fich and Paul Wesson of the Royal Society and University of Waterloo
Paual actually got his PhD at Cambridge and is a good sci fi author.  Ed got his PhD at MIT and Mike got his at Berkeley
Many thanks to ken fleming too of Oxford who is a prof in the medical faculty
and thanks to Graham Wright of UT iin the department of medical biiphysics an MRI prof who got his degrees at Stanford and Waterloo
and Claude Nahmias of McMaster(Retired) who was in the dpartment of Nuclear Medicine and Invented Positron Emission Tomography
I'd like to thank Polkinghorn for his beautiful little book quantum world who worked with Feynman and is a CofE church minister who worked with Feynman back in the day and of course Feynman for all his work on path integrals.
i'd also like to thank Kolmogorov for all his work on Real Analysis and his work on turbulence and nonlinear systems.
I'd like to ppothumously thank my brother Peter Belshaw who got his PhD from Harvard in organic chemistry for teaching me cehmistry and his many discussions about astrophysics.
and Kathy Bowman for unflagging support and friendship for teaching me algebra and relations and functions .and Mrs Kewley the scottish math teacher for teaching me calculus.and the histrory of math and getting me interested in Newton and Archimedes the inventor of integral calculus.and mrs kogan getting me interested in the wave equation, youngs double slit experiment and kepler and tycho brahe. and mr kee for chemistry education and thermodynamics including entropy and enthalpy.
And i'd like to thank Neil Degrassi Tyson and especially Carl Sagan.

a spacetimefrequency distance is probably E/c^2*ds^2 = E/c^2(dx^2 +dy^2 + dz^2) - hf*dt^2 and this is also spacetime distance and the uncertainty principles apply and it is only valid for photons. or hf/c^2*dv^2=m(dvx^2 + dvy^2 + dvz^2) -E where vx is the speed in x direction. I believe there is some energy data and some frequency data and this should be used to check the result. it does reduce to the normal 4D Einstein spacetime ds^2 =. dx^2 + dy^2+dz^2 - c^2*dt^2 when we divide by hf/c^2. f dt^2 reminds me of a chirp in signal processing.
spacetimeEnergy is quantized and energy levels and frequency are quantized and photon is a wavepacket.
Mds^2 = M(dx^ 2+ dy^2 + dz^2) - Mc^2*dt^2 and this is mass spacetime and this is valid throughout the universe.
or
E/c^2 = E/c^2*(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) - E*dt^2 and this is energy space time
basically for macroscopic phenomena these last two equations reduce to 4D and give the normal Einstein spacetime.
for light,   quantum gravity affects the path of light and also affects fusion research and nuclear research. i believe that their might be discrepancies. between the frequency and Energy data and this equation would highlight the errors if any.
 and affects the age and mass calculations for the universe.
also temperature in the desert affects the index of refraction in the atmosphere and changes the path of light based on the phenomena of mirages.  so the temperature causes the path of light to change aswell.
i believe that the feynman path integral of least action needs to be modified for the path of light by quntum gravity (mass of photon).
and maxwells equations are not quite right because they do not take into account phase of light and the mass and gravity of light.
Without energy, mass and light distributions known the path of light in the universe cannot be predicted.  i would say the index of refraction is important too.  this amounts to a 5D theory of spacetime and matter.  the distributions of light energy and mass need to be measured with light. and quantum gravity affects all these measurements.
with temperature and electromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces and  entropy/negative entropy this amounts to a 10D theory and admits the possibility of conscious life.
Indeed if matter is conscious , alive and intelligent then light might take the path of most negative entropy.

[Bored chemist]

Light is not dark.

[Petrochemicals]

Very good, have you calculated it? The trouble with this theory though is the conservation of energy, and mass energy equivalence, the sun would have to loose much mass and energy. The binding energy of helium from 4 hydrogen atoms is very considerable.

[Kryptid]

The energy of fusion is nowhere near enough to account for dark matter. Current measurements put dark matter as accounting for 27% the mass of the visible universe whereas visible matter (like stars) account for only 5%. I'll do a bit of math to show how far off it is.

Let's assume a perfect scenario where we can get as much fusion energy as physically possible (which real stars don't actually achieve). We start off with a star that is composed of 100% hydrogen (the simplest, most common isotope with a single proton). We then will fuse all of that hydrogen into just about the most stable isotope we can (iron-56). The mass of a proton is 1.007825 daltons and we will fuse 56 of them together to produce the iron nucleus: that's a total mass of 56.438032 daltons. The iron-56 nucleus has a mass of 55.934936 daltons. 56.438032 - 55.934936 = ~0.5 daltons. So only about 0.9% of the total mass of the hydrogen has been converted into energy (and that's not counting the positrons and neutrinos, which would take away some of that mass as well). So radiation from stars can't be the explanation for dark matter.

[puppypower]

Dark matter can be eliminated if we assume a more clever explanation for the how the BB expanded. We have not seen dark matter in the lab to know if it is anymore real than unicorns. Unicorns, also have not been seen in the lab.  Neither can be used if we stick to the philosophy of science, until we can prove it is real. Dual standards seem to apply.

The current model assume a more of less uniform density of hot primal particles that cool and somehow seed the galaxies via discontinuities. Dark matter is an addendum to keep this scenario from the garbage can, since the original energy calculations are not longer valid for the original model. It has a major conceptual problem.

An atomized BB early expansion would generate a lot of entropy; complexity from a simple starting state. This would absorb lots of energy. An entropy increase is endothermic. While the second law implies this energy, would not be net reusable even if conserved as a entropic state. The early universe would cool quickly and lose free energy as complexity increases. It may and may not have the giddy-up to expand, unless it was primed with lots of extra startup energy.

The work around this is an alternate scenario where the primordial singularity of the BB, splits into two lower quantum states; two quantum daughter cells. This scenario implies a much lower entropy increase and therefore defines much less free energy loss. Being quantum states separated by gaps these cannot easily reverse without a specific quanta. These continue to spilt into 2^N units, from which all the 2^N galaxy seeds will appear. 

As the daughter cells split all the way to 2^N smaller and smaller units, and run out of free energy for further quantum splits, the 2nd law appears to drive the entropy increase as a mini BB phase, at the galaxy level. In this scenario the daughter singularities are quite close to each other, since the only reference that exists, is near the speed of light where distance and time are highly contracted.The 2^N appears as one thing with 2^N cracks; superimposed.

This stage is sort of like the basis for a multi-universe theory, where there will be 2^N mini BB universes. These are all synchronized via all their references near the speed of light. As they expand into matter, powerful energy waves from all directions from each daughter cell, help contain the matter of these early galaxies in space, even as the space between them expands.

We live in a quantum universe so it makes not sense that the first quanta of the universe; singularity, goes from a quantum of something immense that can create a universe, to something tiny, like the assumed early sub particles. The daughter cell step down model makes more sense in our quantum universe. While the gaps between these quantum states keeps them from reversing, without very specific energy needs. It much go forward even if racketing up little by little.

Data shows galaxies and stars formed very early in the universe; only hundreds of millions of year into the expansion. This is easier to explain without dark matter, if we assume a lower entropy scenario for the BB, that allows for better initial containment at matter at bulk startup.

[Bored chemist]

Dark matter can be eliminated if we assume a more clever explanation for the how the BB expanded.

Dark matter isn't really much to do with eth BB.

We have not seen dark matter in the lab to know if it is anymore real than unicorns. Unicorns, also have not been seen in the lab.  Neither can be used if we stick to the philosophy of science, until we can prove it is real. Dual standards seem to apply.

Dark matter is an addendum to keep this scenario from the garbage can

No. It's there to explain the shapes of spiral galaxies.


Why do you post this nonsense?

[Halc]

@MaeveChondrally

Not sure if you're still watching this topic, but another reason why neither light nor anything else lacking proper mass can account for the effects of dark matter: It moves at light speed which is greater than the escape velocity of any galaxy. So it wouldn't stick around and clump where the matter built up like dark matter does. They have a fairly good map of the density of dark matter at every radius of our galaxy, which gives a corresponding map the speed of dark matter, which is pretty much a speed similar to that of ordinary matter, but less organized in orbiting in the same direction.
The density of light, especially old light, is pretty much uniform throughout the universe, which will have zero effect on the orbit rates of stars about their respective galaxies.

Secondly, energy (both EM energy and kinetic) is not conserved over an expanding metric, which means that light loses energy over time relative to cosmological coordinates. As the energy fades, so does its gravitational effects. The oldest light is CMB light, and that has now faded to 2mm wavelength, about 1/4000th the energy/mass of visible light.