a valid alternative to dark matter/energy theory?

Originally posted by @apathist
Then point out that there is no such physical theory.

The point is that if the universes do not influence each other then it is impossible to do an experiment to either confirm or rule out their existence. So, because the theory effectively stipulates that it cannot be verified or falsified it is not part of physics.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
That particular theory was proposed to explain why gravity is a much weaker force than other forces, the idea being that most of the gravitational force is leaking into one or more parallel universe(s).

But any theory proposed as a quick fix or patch is (imo) suspect and should be taken with a grain of salt. My own particular quick fix would be to def ...[text shortened]... on, but it does have the benefit of not relying on other (theoretical) dimensions or universes.

Yes, this is braneworld stuff. The idea is that universes like ours exist as four dimensional membranes immersed in a 'bulk' of higher dimension. In these theories the matter we see is constrained to the membrane it is in, so particles can't drift off into the bulk, As a theory to explain the weakness of gravity they have a single, short, dimension and gravity can penetrate that dimension. So the gravitational field has an inverse cubed law to start with, instead of an inverse square law. On scales much larger than the diameter of the bulk the extra dimension is saturated and gravity propagates normally.

Originally posted by @deepthought
Yes, this is braneworld stuff. The idea is that universes like ours exist as four dimensional membranes immersed in a 'bulk' of higher dimension. In these theories the matter we see is constrained to the membrane it is in, so particles can't drift off into the bulk, As a theory to explain the weakness of gravity they have a single, short, dimension a ...[text shortened]... than the diameter of the bulk the extra dimension is saturated and gravity propagates normally.

So far the experimentalists have not found the evidence of change in inverse square law at closer and closer distances, I think they are down to 100 microns apart from the masses and it still shows inverse square.. There are plans to get the distance down even lower but I haven't seen it yet. If they do find a deviation from inverse square law it would for sure be evidence of other dimensions but 100 micron doesn't do it.

Originally posted by @humy

To be clear I have never said ALL dark matter consists of black holes, just that most of it is in the form of black holes.

Then you are still clearly wrong and your link is irrelevant as it clearly isn't evidence of most dark matter being black holes.

[quote] black holes in the center of galaxies have been under-estimated in size. ...[text shortened]... ny day.
That evidence clearly shows dark matter, assuming it exists, is NOT mainly black holes.

You are asserting that a hypothesis is fact. That is flawed reasoning. If your assertions were so convincing there would not be so many inaccuracies corrected such as the nearest black hole being closer than once thought.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34436949/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/black-hole-closer-earth-thought/#.WmoQu-HRGZY

You are playing a loose game with theories by asserting they are more than just theories and calling it science as if you know what science is and what it is not. Heck, there are even scientists that claim black holes don't exist. Your claim that scientists have some sort of way to rule out some theories in favor of others is just your delusional perception of consensus being 100% right all the time. I keep telling you NOT to assume and yet you keep doing it like a mentally ill moron doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Stop assuming!

https://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html

Estimating the number of black holes in our galaxy is not easy to do like you claim. If you were half as smart as you think you are you would humble yourself and be open minded for once in your life.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You are asserting that a hypothesis is fact. That is flawed reasoning. If your assertions were so convincing there would not be so many inaccuracies corrected such as the nearest black hole being closer than once thought.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34436949/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/black-hole-closer-earth-thought/#.WmoQu-HRGZY

You are play ...[text shortened]... s smart as you think you are you would humble yourself and be open minded for once in your life.

You are asserting that a hypothesis is fact.

Nope, I am asserting a fact.

If your assertions were so convincing there would not be so many inaccuracies corrected such as the nearest black hole being closer than once thought.

That assertion makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What has a single black hole being closer to us than we once thought got to do with anything? How would that show that dark matter is mostly black holes (your ridiculous claim) ?

Your claim that scientists have some sort of way to rule out some theories in favor of others

Actually I didn't. But they do have "some sort of way" to rule out some theories in favor of others; that "some sort of way" is called "scientific method", stupid;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

just your delusional perception of consensus being 100% right all the time.

I have no such perception. You in contrast have the delusional perception of being 100% right all the time when you are more often wrong.

Originally posted by @humy

You are asserting that a hypothesis is fact.

Nope, I am asserting a fact.

If your assertions were so convincing there would not be so many inaccuracies corrected such as the nearest black hole being closer than once thought.

That assertion makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What has a single black hole being closer t ...[text shortened]... t have the delusional perception of being 100% right all the time when you are more often wrong.

"Nope, I am asserting a fact. "

Absolutely false. We all agree there is dark matter. We do not agree which forms of dark matter are causing the gravity. I say it is mostly black holes and you disagree. We both have a different opinion and that is all. Black holes are more massive than you once thought and if you cannot tell how far they are from our planet you cannot tell how big they are. You are very arrogant to say you know how many there are based on one tiny direction in space. You just cannot accept real logic if you make all those assumptions. I think you know that though. Your ego just will not let you.

Until you can prove me wrong you cannot honestly say you are stating a fact. You can say that stellar dust is mostly the dark matter in your opinion, but you cannot prove it to be a fact. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Facts and opinions are very different. Know the difference!

iOriginally posted by @metal-brain
"Nope, I am asserting a fact. "

Absolutely false. We all agree there is dark matter. We do not agree which forms of dark matter are causing the gravity. I say it is mostly black holes and you disagree. We both have a different opinion and that is all. Black holes are more massive than you once thought and if you cannot tell how far they are from our ...[text shortened]... a fact. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Facts and opinions are very different. Know the difference!

It is not a slam dunk about dark matter. It is INFERRED from the fact galaxies act more like they are all on a slightly slippery plate, that is the outer stars are going around the center a lot faster than would be accounted for by Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity.

There are theories out there that tries to modify gravity theories to account for the difference. Also, now there is confirmation of a possible 5th force of nature, found by the particle accelerator guys.

So it is not a slam dunk yet, in spite of solid looking evidence.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
It is not a slam dunk about dark matter. It is INFERRED from the fact galaxies act more like they are all on a slightly slippery plate, that is the outer stars are going around the center a lot faster than would be accounted for by Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity.

There are theories out there that tries to modify gravity theories to account for the d ...[text shortened]... particle accelerator guys.

So it is not a slam dunk yet, in spite of solid looking evidence.

"possible 5th force of nature, found by the particle accelerator guys."

Interesting. Do you have a link to share with us?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
"possible 5th force of nature, found by the particle accelerator guys."

Interesting. Do you have a link to share with us?

https://phys.org/news/2016-08-physicists-discovery-nature.html

It is also not a slam dunk, it would be Nobel prize level if it was confirmed.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
"Nope, I am asserting a fact. "

Absolutely false. We all agree there is dark matter. We do not agree which forms of dark matter are causing the gravity. I say it is mostly black holes and you disagree. We both have a different opinion and that is all. Black holes are more massive than you once thought and if you cannot tell how far they are from our ...[text shortened]... a fact. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Facts and opinions are very different. Know the difference!

We all agree there is dark matter.

No. There are reasonable but not necessarily probable alternative scientific theories to dark matter. Didn't you comprehend the OP? Go back and red it.

We do not agree which forms of dark matter are causing the gravity.

Right. But all reasonably well-informed scientists agree, assuming it exists, it cannot possibly be mostly black holes (because of the empirical evidence).

I say it is mostly black holes and you disagree.

Not just me! something like 99% of the experts also disagree with you. I have already explained why.

Until you can prove me wrong

Why must I prove you wrong when science has already proven you wrong?
So lets see what the science says, shall we?:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/05/26/black-holes-as-dark-matter-heres-why-the-idea-falls-apart/#216cb2684224

"Black Holes As Dark Matter? Here's Why The Idea Falls Apart..."

Or, if that isn't enough for you;
https://astrobites.org/2017/08/31/could-dark-matter-be-black-holes/
"...black holes are really not unreasonable dark matter candidates. They don’t emit light, and they definitely do interact via gravity, and those are basically the only two things we know about dark matter.
..."
and see diagram which says;
"Figure 1. The ruled out black hole MACHO masses from astrophysical observations. The x-axis is the mass of the black hole (in units of solar masses), and the y-axis is the fraction of dark matter that is made up of black holes. Each colored line surrounds a range of masses that has been ruled out (with more masses ruled out when black holes make up a larger fraction of dark matter). The black dashed line labeled PBH (Primordial Black Hole) is the allowed region in which the LIGO black holes fall. Source: Clesse et al, 2015."

-read and learn something new just for once.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
"possible 5th force of nature, found by the particle accelerator guys."

Interesting. Do you have a link to share with us?

BTW the black hole theory of those being dark matter has a glaring hole. The smaller the mass, the shorter the lifetime. So one the size of an atom would be gone before you could blink an eye.