# Equation for the properties of dark matter

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Beaconator, Sep 17, 2022.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### BeaconatorValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,486
Is there one?

it seems to me that the math always exists before the means we have to discover it.

or is the time spent trying to find an equation a big nothing burger?

to hide all adverts.
3. ### Orion68Registered Senior Member

Messages:
113
I gave it a try. An equation could be: sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) × Kr = 1. In the formula: x, y, z, are coordinates in spacetime [m], Kr = curvature [m^-1]. Whre the distance is always greater than zero.

An elaboration on this can be found at the webpage https://metric.science/metricscience.php?page=resume

to hide all adverts.
5. ### BeaconatorValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,486
I do believe that accurately depicts the curvature of space time as it hits every mark at a tangent, yet has no resemblance to how dark matter behaves. Dark matter would take up most of the spaces here you have defined. The acceleration of gravity here does not exist as you have not put in anything resembling the gravitational constant. And your base line includes any type of information moving at light speed, which gravitational objects do not.

your equation and wording predict a static universe which dark matter ignores. Just gravity speed and mass… predict much more complex values. That is not to say you are wrong just needing a little adjustment, because we both know you equation represents the universe much better than dark matter by itself.

you have to include the universal observations not just pure numbers

Last edited: Sep 17, 2022

to hide all adverts.
7. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
39,237
Moderator note: I have moved this thread to the "Alternative theories" subforum since early indications are that the content is a bit 'cranky'. If it turns out that my assessment is wrongv once we have some more posts, I will move it back to the Physics subforum.

8. ### Orion68Registered Senior Member

Messages:
113
You use the word 'cranky'. What do you mean by that?

Would it be that the reading material is difficult or irritating to deal with. If so, why is the subject moved to the section 'Alternative Theories'?

9. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,370
No it just looks like crank science. The question was about equations for the properties of dark matter. What you have posted doesn't say what property you are talking about and it appears to be dimensionless. How can anyone make sense of that?

10. ### Orion68Registered Senior Member

Messages:
113
The equation is explicitely for dark matter. Guess that you don't have enough IQ to truly comprehend what is written otherwise it probably would have made sense .

11. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,370
This does not make sense. Nor have you explained what the equation can represent, if it is dimensionless.

Let's try this another way. What's the corresponding "equation for matter", then?

12. ### Orion68Registered Senior Member

Messages:
113
I'll repeat myself:

An equation could be: sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) × Kr = 1. In the formula: x, y, z, are coordinates in spacetime [m], Kr = curvature [m^-1]. Where the distance is always greater than zero.

Dark matter is the most basic component of matter in general. A summary is presented as an easy read on https://metric.science/metricscience.php?page=resume

So, any "equation for matter" is a corollary of sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) × Kr = 1.

13. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,370
This is gibberish, just as James suspected.

Equations in physics need to relate to some property of the entity being modelled, that can at least in principle be observed and measured, whether directly or indirectly. For example, Schrödinger's equation relates to the energy of a QM system. That has meaning because we can observe and measure energy, by the predicted effects of changes in it. The same is true of temperature or momentum or velocity.

But nowhere in physics is there an equation "for stuff", unqualified in any way.

14. ### Orion68Registered Senior Member

Messages:
113
It get's boring, if you can't comprehend something then please stop responding with gibberish yourself. For the last time, any "equation for matter" is a corollary of sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) × Kr = 1. Have a good day!

15. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,370
Agreed, it does get boring. But when you find this thread does not go back to the hard science sections, you can book yourself in for an: "I told you so."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(It's not just me, you see. It's you.)

16. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
39,237
Since Orion68 isn't interested in discussing his idea, but rather in just presenting it as self-evident fact, this thread is closed.

Also, Orion68's posts read more like an attempt to drive traffic to his own web site than an honest attempt to start a discussion.