Dark matter has been proposed to explain two phenomena -
- Uniform velocity curve of spiral galaxies
- Observed gravitational lensing.
If something explains these two, would we still need dark matter?
Please see what could be wrong with it -
Space can ripple, curve, distort, squeeze, expand, fall into a black hole at FTL.. Then why it can not swirl around the massive black hole at the center of spiral galaxies. Can it be a space hurricane (SP-HU, in short) which, not only can explain the above two phenomena, but it would also explain the shape of these galaxies to begin with.
A SP-HU would keep the velocity curve pretty much uniform, It would also explain gravitational lensing because light would bend along the direction of swirl.
Aren't the lensed images (of background) always stretched along the direction of spiral?
Do DM models have any requirements to be fulfilled in addition to "causing excess gravity" and "being cold"? If not, SP-HU has both these and in a more natural way, without any mystery, it should fit all the models where DM fits.
I know dark matter is proposed in some non-spiral galaxies as well, but a SP-HU would also explain that, except the shape. So it can be a lighter/slower hurricane in those. That would translate in to lesser percent of proposed dark matter in those galaxies. I do not have the data but I guess if that is the case, then the hurricane hypothesis makes sense for these galaxies as well.
It is not frame dragging -
SP-HU is not same as frame dragging, it is a space swirl that would have been created at the time of big bang as a micro swirl blowing up into galactic/clusteric levels. This would explain structure formation.
Frame dragging is caused by rotation of the bodies. SP-HU is reverse - it caused the rotation of spiral galaxies and so, also their shape.
Comparison with MOND -
MOND can explain some phenomena and fails at others because, it tries to bridge the gap by changing the laws of gravity. Changing laws effects (fails) explanation of other phenomena that have already been explained by current laws.
SP-HU on the other hand does not even touch the laws. SP-HU describes the excess gravity effect without changing the laws. Therefore, it would bridge the gap without effecting other phenomena that have been already explained with existing laws.
Comparison with Dark matter -
SP-HU would bridge all gaps that can be bridged with the excess gravity effect. I.e. it would fill all the gaps that dark matter does, plus one (shape of the spiral galaxies itself). Therefore, it can be a marginally (but importantly) better fit than dark matter. Does dark matter explain why the galaxies are shaped the way they are (spiral).
Is being cold a requirement -
Dark matter is cold - Not sure, but what it means is that dark matter does not absorb the EM waves and so, does not acquire any energy that way, EM would pass right through DM. Whatever it means, we can easily see that SP-HU would have same cold nature as well. e.g. SP-HU would not absorb EM. So even if being cold is a requirement, it is not an issue with the SP-HU hypothesis.
Same logic would apply to being dark, we can not see the SP-HU too. Even though being dark (or transparent) does not seem to be a requirement, it rather appears to be a way out.
But, in case of SP-HU, we do not have to invent this (transparent) way out, we know for sure that it would be transparent.
SP-HU does not conflict with Bullet cluster observation.
What are other requirements that would prefer "dark matter" over SP-HU?